The Kerala High Court on Monday directed all courts in the State to follow guidelines formulated by the Calcutta High Court last year on navigating child custody cases.

A Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar added that these guidelines can be followed until such rules are formed for Kerala.

"This comprehensive child access and custody guidelines along with the parenting plan may for the time being be followed by the Family Courts in Kerala till the committee constituted to consider the said plan has finally placed its recommendations," the June 1 order said.

The Court directed its Registrar General to circulate these guidelines on child access, child custody and parenting plans to all district judges, family courts and magistrates in the State dealing with child custody cases, matrimonial disputes or domestic violence cases.

These guidelines will be followed until rules specific to the State of Kerala are put in place.

The said guidelines were finalised by a rule-making committee of the Calcutta High Court on September 18 last year.

It covers child visitation guidelines as well as a parenting plan to ease how child custody is planned while the child's parents are undergoing a separation.

The primary objective of the guidelines are to ensure that a child caught in a custody battle continues to have a meaningful relationship with both parents and both sides of the family. Further, the guidelines aim to ensure that the child is protected from any physical or psychological harm or any abuse, neglect or family violence.

These guidelines were approved by the Calcutta High Court on September 23, 2025.

The Kerala High Court has now called on courts in the State to follow these guidelines as well in child custody cases, until rules for Kerala are finalised.

The Court issued the direction while dealing with a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother seeking the production of her child. She told the Court that her estranged husband had violated a family court's decree by refusing to hand over the child to her.

The High Court noted that there was an April 24 family court order granting the child's permanent custody to the mother. The family court had added that the child may stay with the father for a few days after which the boy's custody was to be handed over to his mother.

However, the child was allegedly taken by his father from school without informing the mother. The father then allegedly refused to hand over the child's custody to the mother.

Before the High Court, the father claimed that the child had made some complaints about the mother, which was why he had taken the child with him. The High Court noted that even if this allegation is true, the father ought to have moved the family court for a modification of the earlier decree instead of taking the law into his hands.

It concluded that the father appears to have breached the family court's order by refusing to return the child to its mother. It also expressed anguish over how the child was reduced to a pawn in a battle between his estranged parents.

"It is unfortunate that the child is being treated like a pawn in the hands of the parents. The parents are not expected to behave irresponsibly. In our view, the child should now be returned to the mother, who shall continue to be the guardian of the child unless and until the order of the Family Court is modified," the order said.

The High Court also interacted with the child and found that he preferred to stay with his mother. It, therefore, ensured that the child's custody was handed over to his mother in the court itself.

It called for a social investigation report on the child's status to be submitted before the family court.

The Court added that the family court is free to take a final call on the child custody arrangements, including any plea to modify the earlier decree that may be moved by the father.

The High Court said that the family court should take a decision on such issues in line with the guidelines formulated by the Calcutta High Court.

Advocates Navaneeth N Nath and Abhirami S, Abdul Latheef PM, Krupa Saji and Arjun Gopi GL represented the child's mother (petitioner).

Public Prosecutor KA Anas represented the State.

Advocates Reginald Valsalan and Maria Francis represented the child's father.

[Read Order]