Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 28915
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
EASWARAN S., J
JAARON JASMIN DEEPAK @ JAARON J. DEEPAK – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 15690 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
For the Respondents: HARIKRISHNAN P.B., P.SREEKUMAR – ASGI, S.L.SYLAJA – GOVERNMENT PLEADER
High Court declares sole custody based on Family Court divorce decree for visa purposes.
Headnote:The petitioners sought declaration of sole custody of the minor child post Family Court decree under divorce proceedings and exemption from producing English translations for UK visa. Relevant facts include compromise entrusting mother with permanent custody and visa rejection for lack of sole custody declaration. Court found Family Court's decree sufficient basis for relief. Issue framed as whether High Court can declare sole custody absent further Family Court order. Ratio: Given pendency bar and justice interest, declaration upheld based on existing decree and compromise terms. Writ petition allowed; declaration issued that mother is sole custodian of minor child.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. reliefs sought post-divorce custody compromise. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. notice issued to ex-husband; no appearance. (Para 3) |
| 3. court declares sole custody for visa based on decree. (Para 4) |
J U D G M E N T
This Writ Petition is filed for the following reliefs:-
“(i) Call for the records relating to Ext.P1 to P4 from the 4th respondent;
(ii) Declare that the 2nd petitioner is the solely responsible person over the affairs of the 1st petitioner and sole responsibility for the upbringing of the 1st petitioner for obtaining visa to the 1st petitioner from the United Kingdom (iii) Exempt the petitioners from producing English translated copy of the vernacular documents;
(iv) Such other relief's which is deemed to be fit and proper to this honourable court in the facts and circumstance of the case.”
2. The marriage of the 2nd petitioner was sought to be dissolved through the process of the law by filing O.P.(IDA) No.1664/2025 before the Family Court, Attingal. During the pendency of said proceedings, a compromise petition was entered between the parties, wherein the 2nd petitioner was entrusted with the permanent custody of her son. Taking note of the compromise, the Family Court, Attingal, passed Ext.P4 Decree dissolving the marriage of the petitioner. Thereafter, the 2nd petitioner applied for obtaining Visa for the 1st petitioner from the United Kingdom. When such application was given, the same was not accepted for the reason that the petitioners should produce the order of the court declaring that she is the sole custodian of her minor child.
3. On 24.04.2026, this Court had issued notice by messenger to the 4th respondent. The service to the 4th respondent is reported to be complete. None appears for the 4th respondent.
4. The prayer sought for by the petitioners is for a declaration that the 2nd petitioner is the sole custodian of the minor child. Since the Family Court has already ordered the petition for dissolution of marriage, it is impossible for the petitioners to approach the self-same court for further relief. In such circumstances, the interest of justice will be subserved, if this Court declares that the 2nd petitioner is the sole custodian of the 1st petitioner based on Ext.P4 Decree, and also the terms of compromise based on which Ext.P4 Decree was passed.
The Writ Petition is thus ordered accordingly.
