The court prioritized the child's rights to unconditional care from both parents, allowing the father access to the child's therapy and education while emphasizing collaborative parenting.

JUDGMENT :

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner says that he has approached this Court through this contempt case under the impression – which perhaps is not true any more – that the mother is not allowing the child to interact with him, in spite of the directions in the judgment earlier delivered.

2. Smt.Smruthi Sasidharan – learned counsel for the petitioner, explained that his client filed this contempt case not to invoke any action against the respondent, but under the afore wrong impression; but that his real intent is to be part of his child’s life, as any father would wish for. She thus prayed that this contempt case be closed; but that it be clarified that her client can be part of the schooling and therapy sessions of his child – she being a special one – so that his obligations as a parent can be discharged by him to his satisfaction.

3. Sri.V.Philip Mathews – learned counsel for the respondent, in response, began saying that his client has never violated the orders of this Court, but that the child was unwilling to go to the father, primarily because she is a special one and also since she was suffering from certain physical indispositions at the relevant time. He showed us certain documents – which his client has placed on record in substantiation along with IA No.1/2025.

4. We have little doubt that the spar between the parents with respect to the child in question is rather unfortunate. The child requires every care that the parents can give her, without any condition and in an unqualified manner. The rights of the child are that we are concerned about, and not that of the parties. The child surely obtains right to have her parents with her when she grows up, particularly when she requires special attention and therapy.

5. As we have said in Indu S. v. Thomas @ Manoj [ 2025 (3) KHC 295 ], parties to litigation involving matrimonial issues, more often, forget the impact their actions create on the child. There can be no greater example than this case.

6. We say as afore because, when this matter was considered by us in the morning session today, we allowed the father to be with the child. However, the latter refused to even meet eyes with the former, and this was so, even though we encouraged and persuaded her repeatedly. In fact, when we asked the child to be left alone with the father, she ran to the mother and refused to let her go. She, no doubt, is attached to her mother, not as a parent alone but also as a caregiver; and perhaps, the thought that this litigation may finally entail action against her mother, must be disturbing her.

7. The way out in our minds is that the parents must find peace with each other and be involved with the child’s progress together as partners. They may be divorced as husband and wife, but they can never be divorced as parents. Their responsibilities as parents will continue as long as they live, notwithstanding whether they are husband and wife.

8. We are, therefore, of the firm view that, though it will only be justified for us to close this contempt case, both the parents must be given equal opportunities and liberties in the life and progress of the child, particularly when she undergoes therapy and education.

Since the learned counsel on both sides welcome this unequivocally, we pass the following directions:

(a) This contempt case is closed.

(b) The petitioner will be at full liberty to be part of the therapy sessions and to monitor the educational progress and personal life of the child; however, without causing her any vexation, and understanding that his obligation is to give her the maximum care and protection, bereft of threat or intimidation.

We record the undertaking of Sri.V.Philip Mathews, made on behalf of the respondent, that