2025 Supreme(Ker) 1432
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ.
Jithin K Purushu S/o. N. Purushothaman Kattumakkil - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Kerala - Respondent
WP(CRL.) No. 525 Of 2025
Decided On : 22-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A.PARVATHI MENON, P.SANJAY, KIRAN NARAYANAN, RAHUL RAJ P., MEERA R. MENON
For the Respondent: MOHANKUMAR P T, RAM MOHAN(K/2812/2023), SMT MARY BEENA JOSEPH-SR.GP.
Custody arrangements post-parental death should foster the child's best interests by encouraging parental and grandparental relationships and minimizing conflicts.
Headnote:(A) Family Law - Custodianship rights - Child custody arrangement post the demise of a parent - Temporary arrangements permitted for father to reside with child and maternal grandparents with no objections from either party - The court encourages amicable resolution of disputes arising out of misunderstandings between relatives for the child's welfare. (Paras 4, 6, 8)
(B) Best interests of the child - The court underscores that decisions regarding custody must prioritize the emotional and psychological well-being of the child, fostering relationships with both sets of grandparents. (Paras 5, 7, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, after the demise of his wife, disputes arose with the maternal grandparents of the child. The minor child currently resides with the maternal grandparents who have been caring for her since the mother's passing.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner was allowed interim custody of the child, with explicitly unrestricted access for the maternal grandparents, emphasizing the importance of a joint familial role.
Issues: The resolution of custody disputes and the need for an amicable relationship between the parties to benefit the child's upbringing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no rationale for conflict regarding the child’s custody and highlighted that both parties, having suffered loss, should coexist amicably in the child's best interest.
Result: Petition allowed, interim custody granted to the father with access for the grandparents.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis of family relationship and custody context. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. importance of amicable resolution and best interests of the child. (Para 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT :
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
When this matter was considered by another Bench of this Court on 06.05.2025, after interacting with the parties, the following order had been indited:
“We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.7 and 8. 2. Petitioner is the son-in-law of respondent Nos.7 and 8.
2. Petitioner is the son-in-law of respondent Nos.7 and 8. The wife of the petitioner/daughter of respondent Nos.7 and 8 passed away on account of malignancy on 21.03.2024. The minor child, born out of the relationship between the petitioner and the late daughter of respondent Nos.7 and 8, is presently residing with respondent Nos.7 and 8 . She is aged about 4 ½ .
3. Learned Government Pleader has placed before us the report of the Inspector of Police, Sulthan Bathery police station, which indicates that the issues between the petitioner and respondents 7 and 8 arise out of petty misunderstandings and an amicable solution is possible if both sides wish to do so.
4. Having interacted with the petitioner and respondent Nos.7 and 8, we are of the opinion that this is a case where issues between the petitioner and respondent Nos.7 and 8 can be easily resolved. Presently, the minor child is dependent on and seems quite attached to respondent Nos.7 and 8. This is possibly on account of the fact that the petitioner had no access to his child and has been away from her for quite some time, after the death of his wife. The petitioner, very reluctantly and on our prompting, has agreed that, for a period of two weeks, he will reside with respondent Nos.7 and 8 and his minor daughter at their residence at Coorg. We believe that this course of action is necessary, so that a bond may develop between the petitioner and his minor child.
5. Respondent Nos.7 and 8 have absolutely no objection to the aforesaid course of action.
6. Therefore, purely as an interim measure and subject to further orders, we permit the petitioner to reside with respondent Nos.7 and 8 and his minor child at the residence of respondent Nos.7 and 8 at Coorg, for a period of two weeks from 08.05.2025. The petitioner will also be permitted to take the child out and there will be absolutely no restriction placed on his interactions with the child during the aforesaid period of two weeks.
List this matter for further consideration on 22.05.2025.”
2. Smt.A.Parvathi Menon - learned counsel for the petitioner, conceded that her client is now staying – in obedience to the above order - with respondents 7 and 8, as also the child, in the latter’s residence and that the relationship between them has moved cordially. She, therefore, prayed that the child be released to her client; but undertaking that the maternal grandparents, namely respondents 7 and 8 will have unrestricted access to her, either physically or through phone and another methods. She explained that her client has nothing against his in-laws and therefore, that he is also willing to take the child to them whenever they want.
3. Sri.Mohan Kumar – learned counsel for the party respondents, graciously accepted the afore suggestions saying that his clients never want permanent custody of the child, but is concerned about her as any grandparent would be. He added that his clients have been taking care of the child ever since the death of her mother and therefore, that they have developed close affinity to her. He prayed that his clients be, therefore, allowed full access to her whenever they want, as has been suggested by Smt.A.Parvathi Menon.
4. Interestingly, the afore extracted order itself records that the disputes between the parties are out of “petty misunderstandings”.
5. That said, we do not see why there should be a dispute between the parties with respect to the