Supreme Court Restricts Periodic 15‑Day Custody Regime; Emphasises Child’s Welfare as Paramount

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal challenging a Kerala High Court order that granted interim custody of two minor children to the father for 15 days each month. The matter concerned competing guardianship and custody claims arising from matrimonial discord and an ongoing Family Court proceeding under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

The Court allowed the appeal in part, set aside the High Court’s order insofar as it gave the three‑year‑old son to the respondent‑father on a periodic 15‑day basis, and modified interim arrangements for the eight‑year‑old daughter. The bench observed that the “paramount consideration should be the welfare of the child” and that arrangements which risk the child’s physical or emotional well‑being could not be sustained. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “There are series of judgments by this Court wherein, it has been authoritatively held that in cases of child custody, the paramount consideration should be the welfare of the child. 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 further noted that “the periodic division of custody is definitely adverse to the well‑being; physical, mental and emotional, of the children,” and fashioned supervised, measured access for the father instead of a fortnightly division.

Background

The spouses married in 2014 and had two children — a daughter born on July 23, 2016, and a son born on July 5, 2022. The appellant‑mother worked in an IT company with the facility to work from home; the respondent‑father worked in Singapore as a General Manager. Following marital discord and separation episodes, the mother filed an original guardianship petition (O.P. (G&W) No. 1185 of 2024) in the Family Court at Thiruvananthapuram in June 2024 seeking permanent custody. The Family Court restrained the father from forcibly removing the children and later granted him limited visitation: monthly court‑premises visits and weekly video calls.

The father challenged the Family Court order before the Kerala High Court under Article 227. The Division Bench, by order dated December 11, 2024, granted interim custody to each parent for fifteen days each month subject to conditions (including the father taking a furnished flat on rent, engaging a nanny, arranging transport and ensuring a congenial environment). The High Court also specified arrangements during examinations, video‑call permissions and parental counselling.

The mother petitioned to the Supreme Court by special leave. This Court stayed the High Court’s order in respect of the son and restored the Family Court arrangement for him, but allowed the interim custody arrangement for the daughter to continue pending hearing. After in‑camera interaction with the parents and a separate interview with the daughter, the Court found that the High Court’s 15‑day periodic custody regime was not “feasible nor conducive to the well‑being” of the children. The daughter reported that while in the father’s interim custody all meals were ordered from restaurants and she had no company other than her father; the father conceded he had not engaged a nanny as directed. Applying settled precedent that welfare of the child is paramount, the Supreme Court held the fortnightly division unsustainable.

Final outcome: the impugned High Court order was reversed. The Court directed that the father shall have interim custody of the daughter on alternate Saturdays and Sundays each month; on either of those days he may have up to four hours with the son subject to the child’s comfort and supervised by a child counsellor engaged by the father with Family Court approval. The father was permitted to retain or take a suitably furnished flat in Thiruvananthapuram, to make sincere efforts to provide home‑cooked meals during custody periods, and to place scheduled 15‑minute video calls to both children on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The Family Court was directed to expedite disposal of the guardianship petition. Pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 587 (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 31099 of 2024) Case Title: Arathy Ramachandran v. Bijay Raj Menon Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Arathy Ramachandran — appeared in person For the Respondent(s): Bijay Raj Menon — appeared through video conferencing