Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
Neethu B. @ Neethu Baby Mathew – Petitioner
Versus
Rajesh Kumar – Respondent
R.P. (C) Nos. 2273-2274 of 2024 In Civil Appeal Nos. 5395-5396 of 2024
Decided On : 15-07-2025
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
Case Details * Citation: 2025 Supreme(SC) 1071; 2025 INSC 853; 2025 10 SCC 436; 2025 2 OLR 436; 2025 KLT(Online) 2403; 2025 KHC(Online) 6606 (!) * Court: Supreme Court of India (!) * Judges: Vikram Nath, Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. (!) * Parties: Neethu B. @ Neethu Baby Mathew (Petitioner) vs. Rajesh Kumar (Respondent) (!) * Case Numbers: R.P. (C) Nos. 2273-2274 of 2024; In Civil Appeal Nos. 5395-5396 of 2024 (!) * Date Decided: 15-07-2025 (!) * Subject: Family Law - Child Custody (!) * Acts Referred: Constitution of India: Article 137 (Review jurisdiction), Article 145 (!)
Factual Background * Marriage & Child: Petitioner and Respondent married in 2011; son born in 2012 (!) * Separation: Parties lived separately from 22.10.2013; divorce by mutual consent finalized on 26.06.2015 (!) * Original Custody Agreement: Mother granted custody; Father granted visitation on two Saturdays a month (!) * Petitioner's Remarriage: Petitioner remarried Handel Thomas in 2016; they have two other children (!) * Relocation Issue: In October 2019, Respondent learned of Petitioner's intent to relocate child to Malaysia for Petitioner's husband's job; child's religion changed without Respondent's consent (!) * Litigation History: * Respondent filed for permanent custody in 2020 (!) * Trial Court (Oct 2022) granted custody to Mother (!) (!) * High Court (Oct 2023) granted custody to Father, restricting Mother to virtual visitation (!) * Supreme Court (Aug 2024) dismissed Petitioner's appeals, confirming custody with Father (!)
Grounds for Review * New Evidence: Petitioner claimed the dismissal of appeals caused immense negative impact on the child's mental health (!) * Psychological Reports: Clinical Psychologist reports (CMC, Vellore) dated 03.09.2024, 19.10.2024, 07.01.2025, and 29.03.2025 indicated high risk for separation anxiety disorder and anxiety due to the custody change threat (!) (!) (!) * Alleged Threats: Petitioner alleged Respondent threatened the child regarding separation, exacerbating psychological distress (!)
Legal Principles Applied * Review Jurisdiction: Review is sparingly exercised and requires a manifest wrong or new evidence discovered after due diligence (!) (!) * Child Welfare Paramountcy: The child's welfare is the paramount consideration; custody orders are not rigid and must consider changing circumstances (!) (!) (!) * Best Interest Factors: Includes emotional stability, quality education, and a secure family environment (!) * Stability: Disrupting a stable environment where the child has been raised since infancy is detrimental (!) (!)
Court's Findings & Reasoning * New Evidence Accepted: The child's deteriorating mental health is a new development post-decision, justifying review under Article 137 (!) * Current Caregiver Status: Child has been exclusively with Mother since 11 months of age and views her as primary caregiver (!) * Stepfather's Role: Child recognizes stepfather as a paternal figure; stepfather committed to education and financial support (!) * Father's Involvement: Child has not formed a bond with biological father due to lack of interaction since 2014; abrupt custody change would be damaging (!) (!) * Conclusion: Changing custody to the Father would upend the child's stable environment and harm his welfare (!) (!)
Relief Granted / Directions * Custody: Permanent custody remains with the Petitioner-Mother (!) (!) * Virtual Visitation: Respondent-Father allowed virtual interaction twice a week (30 mins each) (!) * In-Person Visitation: Respondent allowed to visit in-person for one day every weekend (10 a.m. to 5 p.m.) (!) (!) * Handover: Child to be produced before Family Court Officer for handover on Saturdays (!) * Relocation Restriction: Mother restrained from taking child outside India except during Onam, Christmas, and 50% of summer vacations (!) * Reporting: Mother must submit travel details 2 weeks prior and 10 days prior for foreign travel (!) (!) * Psychological Monitoring: Mother to continue psychotherapy; Father to attend counseling sessions to understand child's emotional state (!) * Re-assessment: Mandatory re-assessment of child's health at CMC, Vellore within three months (before 31st Oct 2025) (!) * Future Visitation: Overnight stay or longer visitation not granted now; subject to modification based on positive behavioral changes (!) * Conduct: Both parents advised against making insensitive remarks or threats to the child (!) (!) * Court Attendance: Physical presence of child in court premises advised to be avoided unless absolutely necessary (!)
Final Order * Review petitions allowed; original Supreme Court order of 22.08.2024 recalled (!) * High Court order of 17.10.2023 set aside (!) * Trial Court conditions reaffirmed with modified visitation arrangements (!)
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. The instant review petitions have been preferred by the original appellant in Civil Appeal No(s). 5395-5396/2024, wherein the present petitioner’s appeals assailing the common final judgment and order dated 17.10.2023 in MAT Appeal No. 815/2022 and MAT Appeal No. 252/2023 passed by the High Court of Kerala were dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 22.08.2024.
2. The brief factual background leading to the instant petitions is necessary before we delve into the reason for employing the review jurisdiction of this Court which is otherwise sparingly exercised.
3. The marriage was solemnised between the petitioner-wife and respondent-husband on 04.09.2011 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals, and a boy was born out of the wedlock on 07.11.2012. However, differences arose between the parties soon after, they started living separately from 22.10.2013 onwards and eventually decided to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent. Accordingly, an agreement based on mutual understanding was executed by both the parties on 13.09.2014 regarding the terms of divorce as well as the custody of the minor child. As per the terms and conditions of the said agreement, custody of the minor child was agreed to remain with the petitioner-mother and the respondent-father was granted visitation rights on two Saturdays in a month. A joint divorce petition was filed by the parties which was allowed by the Family Court, Attingal, Kerala on 26.06.2015 in terms of the mutual agreement.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner got remarried with one Handel Thomas on 18.08.2016. The said Handel Thomas had two children from his earlier marriage, and they have attained the age of majority as of date. Subsequently, one more child was born to the petitioner and Handel Thomas out of the wedlock. The petitioner was living with her husband and the minor children at Thiruvananthapuram at the relevant time.
5. It is the respondent’s account of events that he remained unaware about the whereabouts of the petitioner and his minor son for the period between 2016-19 and could not find petitioner’s residential address despite his best efforts. It is only in October 2019 when the petitioner contacted the respondent, in order to get his signatures on certain affidavits to obtain relevant documents for the minor son’s international travel, that the respondent became aware about the factum of petitioner’s remarriage and her intentions to relocate the minor son to Malaysia. The relocation of the minor child along with the petitioner to Malaysia was intended on account of it being the place where the petitioner’s second husband had secured a gainful employment opportunity in the capacity of a Senior Manager in a multinational company. As per the respondent, upon inquiry, he also subsequently became aware that the child’s religion has been changed from Hindu to Christian by the petitioner without any consent or knowledge of the respondent.
6. Hence, in light of the above developments, the respondent filed OP(G&W) No. 2353/2020 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram seeking permanent custody of the minor child. The said petition was subsequently transferred to Family Court, Ottapalam at the instance of the petitioner, who also preferred a counterclaim to seek permission to be able to take the minor child outside India in order to rejoin her husband.
7. The Trial Court, vide judgment dated 31.10.2022, rejected the respondent’s prayer for the custody of the child, granted permanent custody and guardianship of the minor to the petitioner and extended visitation rights to the respondent in following terms:
“In the result, original petition is allowed in part and counter claim is allowed and a decree is passed as follows:
1. The prayer of the petitioner for permanent custody of the minor child is disallowed.
2. The petitioner is allowed to see and interact with the minor child on all 2nd and 4th Saturdays from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. at the premises of the court.
3. The
The court emphasized the paramount importance of a child's welfare in custody matters and the limited scope of review jurisdiction, particularly when new evidence affects a child's mental health.
The paramount consideration in custody matters is the best interest and welfare of the child, not the legal rights of the parents.
In custody disputes, the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration, overriding the statutory rights of parents.
The welfare of the child is paramount in custody and visitation matters, and both parents have a right to access the child.
Custody of a minor must prioritize the child's welfare, with visitation rights structured to maintain relationships with both parents amidst ongoing parental conflict.
The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in deciding custody disputes, and the child's right to know her birth parents is essential.
Custody of child – Financial status of either party is not the sole determining factor when considering issue of custody, though it may be relevant – Affection of child cannot be won over by force.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
