The Supreme Court on April 29 set aside a Kerala High Court order granting interim custody of two children to the father..A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta decided to revoke the interim custody citing the father's failure to provide proper attention to the children including home-cooked food.The Court observed that that restaurant food harms even adults, let alone an 8-year-old, who needs nutritious home-cooked meals—something the father can't provide.The Court added that the father is not in position to give full-time attention to the child due to his job and daily activities."It cannot be gainsaid that continued consumption of food procured from restaurants/hotels would pose a health hazard, even to a grown-up person, what to talk of a tender aged child of eight years. The child definitely requires nutritious home cooked food for her overall well-being, growth and development. Unfortunately, the respondent-father is not in a position to provide such nutrition to the child...we could even have considered giving an opportunity to the respondent-father to make suitable arrangements for providing home cooked food to the child but the fact that the child gets no company whatsoever except for that of the father during the interim custody period of 15 days is an additional factor which weighs heavily against his claim for the child’s custody at this stage," Court noted.The wife and the husband got married in 2014 and two children were born out of the wedlock. The couple began living separately after marital discord in 2017.In June 2024, the wife approached a family court in Thiruvananthapuram seeking permanent custody of the children under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The family court granted her interim custody and limited the father's visitation rights to the second Saturday of every month and weekly video calls. The said proceedings are still pending for final adjudication.Dissatisfied with these conditions, father approached the Kerala High Court. In December, 2024, the High Court granted him interim custody of the children for 15 days each month subject to several conditions, including renting a flat in Thiruvananthapuram, hiring a nanny and ensuring health and congenial environment. The wife then moved to Supreme Court challenging the said order of Kerala High Court..The apex court noted that the father had not complied with key conditions of the High Court’s order. Most notably, he failed to engage a nanny and did not ensure the provision of home-cooked food. During an in-camera interaction with the eight-year-old daughter, the Court found her to be intelligent and articulate. She expressed discomfort with the fortnightly custody switch and confirmed that all meals during her stay with her father were ordered from outside, with no home-cooked food. She also mentioned having no companionship apart from her father during that period."She seemed uncomfortable by the 15 days’ periodic custody arrangement dividing her time between the father and the mother," the Court noted.The Court also expressed concern regarding the younger son, aged three, who had rarely lived with the father and could suffer serious psychological consequences due to forced separation from his mother."The interim arrangement made by the High Court to the extent of the three-year-old son is totally uncalled for and unsustainable on the face of the record," the Court noted..The Supreme Court emphasised that custody decisions must be guided solely by the welfare of the child and not by the emotional assertions or logistical arrangements made by either parent."The utmost sincerity, love and affection showered by either of the parents, by itself, cannot be a ground to decide the custody of a child," the Court stated.Considering the children’s welfare as paramount, the Supreme Court set aside the order of Kerala High Court."We feel that the High Court clearly erred in granting interim custody of the children to the respondent-father for a period of 15 days every month. The arrangement made by the High Court was not arrived at by weighing the pros and cons of the situation. The periodic division of custody is definitely adverse to the well-being; physical, mental and emotional, of the children. In a long run, this arrangement may prove extremely harmful and may cause irreversible mental trauma to both the children. and ruled that father shall be entitled to interim custody of the daughter on alternate Saturdays and Sundays each month," Court noted..However, taking note that father has shown his keen desire to have an equal and effective parenting role in the upbringing of his children, Court ordered that the father shall be entitled to interim custody of the daughter on alternate Saturdays and Sundays each month.During these visits, he may also spend four hours with the son, subject to the child’s comfort and under the supervision of a child counsellor approved by the family court. The Court further directed that video calls between the father and children are permitted for 15 minutes every Tuesday and Thursday, at mutually decided times.The Court also directed the family court to expedite the proceedings in the custody case filed by the mother..Senior Advocate Haripriya Padmanabhan along with advocates Santosh Krishnan and Sonam Anand appeared for the wife.Senior Advocate Rajesh Kumar Pandey and Advocate Aswathi MK appeared for the husband.
The Supreme Court on April 29 set aside a Kerala High Court order granting interim custody of two children to the father..A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta decided to revoke the interim custody citing the father's failure to provide proper attention to the children including home-cooked food.The Court observed that that restaurant food harms even adults, let alone an 8-year-old, who needs nutritious home-cooked meals—something the father can't provide.The Court added that the father is not in position to give full-time attention to the child due to his job and daily activities."It cannot be gainsaid that continued consumption of food procured from restaurants/hotels would pose a health hazard, even to a grown-up person, what to talk of a tender aged child of eight years. The child definitely requires nutritious home cooked food for her overall well-being, growth and development. Unfortunately, the respondent-father is not in a position to provide such nutrition to the child...we could even have considered giving an opportunity to the respondent-father to make suitable arrangements for providing home cooked food to the child but the fact that the child gets no company whatsoever except for that of the father during the interim custody period of 15 days is an additional factor which weighs heavily against his claim for the child’s custody at this stage," Court noted.The wife and the husband got married in 2014 and two children were born out of the wedlock. The couple began living separately after marital discord in 2017.In June 2024, the wife approached a family court in Thiruvananthapuram seeking permanent custody of the children under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The family court granted her interim custody and limited the father's visitation rights to the second Saturday of every month and weekly video calls. The said proceedings are still pending for final adjudication.Dissatisfied with these conditions, father approached the Kerala High Court. In December, 2024, the High Court granted him interim custody of the children for 15 days each month subject to several conditions, including renting a flat in Thiruvananthapuram, hiring a nanny and ensuring health and congenial environment. The wife then moved to Supreme Court challenging the said order of Kerala High Court..The apex court noted that the father had not complied with key conditions of the High Court’s order. Most notably, he failed to engage a nanny and did not ensure the provision of home-cooked food. During an in-camera interaction with the eight-year-old daughter, the Court found her to be intelligent and articulate. She expressed discomfort with the fortnightly custody switch and confirmed that all meals during her stay with her father were ordered from outside, with no home-cooked food. She also mentioned having no companionship apart from her father during that period."She seemed uncomfortable by the 15 days’ periodic custody arrangement dividing her time between the father and the mother," the Court noted.The Court also expressed concern regarding the younger son, aged three, who had rarely lived with the father and could suffer serious psychological consequences due to forced separation from his mother."The interim arrangement made by the High Court to the extent of the three-year-old son is totally uncalled for and unsustainable on the face of the record," the Court noted..The Supreme Court emphasised that custody decisions must be guided solely by the welfare of the child and not by the emotional assertions or logistical arrangements made by either parent."The utmost sincerity, love and affection showered by either of the parents, by itself, cannot be a ground to decide the custody of a child," the Court stated.Considering the children’s welfare as paramount, the Supreme Court set aside the order of Kerala High Court."We feel that the High Court clearly erred in granting interim custody of the children to the respondent-father for a period of 15 days every month. The arrangement made by the High Court was not arrived at by weighing the pros and cons of the situation. The periodic division of custody is definitely adverse to the well-being; physical, mental and emotional, of the children. In a long run, this arrangement may prove extremely harmful and may cause irreversible mental trauma to both the children. and ruled that father shall be entitled to interim custody of the daughter on alternate Saturdays and Sundays each month," Court noted..However, taking note that father has shown his keen desire to have an equal and effective parenting role in the upbringing of his children, Court ordered that the father shall be entitled to interim custody of the daughter on alternate Saturdays and Sundays each month.During these visits, he may also spend four hours with the son, subject to the child’s comfort and under the supervision of a child counsellor approved by the family court. The Court further directed that video calls between the father and children are permitted for 15 minutes every Tuesday and Thursday, at mutually decided times.The Court also directed the family court to expedite the proceedings in the custody case filed by the mother..Senior Advocate Haripriya Padmanabhan along with advocates Santosh Krishnan and Sonam Anand appeared for the wife.Senior Advocate Rajesh Kumar Pandey and Advocate Aswathi MK appeared for the husband.
