ARATHY RAMACHANDRANversusBIJAY RAJ MENON

                 [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2063 : 2025 INSC 587

                          Arathy Ramachandran
                                    v.
                             Bijay Raj Menon
                       (Civil Appeal No. 5680 of 2025)
                                  29 April 2025
     [Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose as regards sustainability of the order passed by the
       High Court granting 15 days interim custody of the minor children
       to the father.

                                   Headnotes†
       Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – Custody of children – 15
       days interim custody to the father – Grant of – Appellant-
       mother sought permanent custody of children, one son and
       one daughter – Family court restrained respondent-father
       from forcibly removing the minor children from the custody
       of the mother – Family court granted visitation rights to the
       father – On petition of the father, High Court granted interim
       custody of the children to the father for 15 days – SLP
       by mother raising concerns regarding environment being
       provided to the daughter during the interim custody period of
       15 days granted to the father – During pendency, this Court
       stayed the operation of interim custody granted to father in
       respect of minor son, and the interim custody of the daughter
       continued – Sustainability:
       Held: Order passed by the High Court not sustainable – In cases
       of child custody, the paramount consideration should be the welfare
       of the child – Utmost sincerity, love and affection showered by
       either of the parents, by itself, cannot be a ground to decide the
       custody of a child – On facts, interim arrangement charted out by
       High Court, neither feasible nor conducive to the well-being, mental
       and physical, of the children – Directing the interim custody of the
       tender aged boy of three years to be assigned to the father, grossly
       unjustified, may have serious adverse effects, and is totally uncalled
       for – As regards the daughter, the intervening circumstances and
       the information provided by the child during interaction fortifies the

* Author
2064                                                          [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


    genuine concern of the mother that the environment being provided
    to the child by the father during the interim custody may not be
    conducive to her physical and emotional well-being – Child definitely
    requires nutritious home cooked food for overall well-being, growth
    and development and the father not in a position to provide such
    nutrition to the child – Also the child gets no company except that
    of the father during the interim custody period whereas the parents
    of the mother are staying with her – Emotional and moral support
    which the child gets at her mother’s home is manifold than what
    is being provided by the father during custody period – Period
    of 15 days with the father would also lead to deprivation of her
    company to her sibling – High Court clearly erred in granting interim
    custody of the children to the father for a period of 15 days every
    month – Arrangement made by the High Court not arrived at by
    weighing the pros and cons of the situation – Periodic division of
    custody definitely adverse to the well-being; physical, mental and
    emotional, of the children – To provide the father fair and reasonable
    access to the children, the father entitled to interim custody of the
    daughter on alternate Saturdays and Sundays of every month, and
    on either of these two days, interim custody of the boy child for
    a period of four hours – Father to make sincere efforts to provide
    home cooked meals to the children during this period of interim
    custody – Impugned order set aside. [Paras 19-29, 32]

                                List of Acts
    Guardians and Wards Act, 1890; Constitution of India.

                             List of Keywords
    Child custody; Permanent custody; Interim custody of the minor
    children; Visitation rights; Welfare of child; Emotional and physical
    well-being of child; Adverse effects on emotional and physical well-
    being of child; Periodic division of custody; Forced separation from
    mother; Intervening circumstances; Nutritious home cooked food;
    Emotional and moral support; Health hazard; Mental trauma to
    children; Family bonding; Child counsellor; Utmost sincerity, love
    and affection showered by the parents; 15 days’ interim custody.

                            Case Arising From
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5680 of 2025
    From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2024 of the High Court
    of Kerala at Ernakulam in OPFC No. 682 of 2024
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                         2065

                      Arathy Ramachandran v. Bijay Raj Menon


                                   Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant:
       Ms. Haripriya Padmanabhan, Sr. Adv., Santosh Krishnan,
       Ms. Sonam Anand, Vishal Sinha.
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Sr. Adv., Ms. Aswathi M.K.

                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                               Judgment

       Mehta, J.

1.     Heard.
2.     Leave granted.
3.     The appellant1 and the respondent,2 who are both highly qualified
       professionals, tied the knot in the year 2014. From their wedlock,
       two children were born-the first being the daughter, on 23.07.2016,
       and the second being the son, on 05.07.2022. The custody of the
       children is the subject matter of the present lis.
4.     We are informed that at present, the appellant-mother is employed in
       an IT company which allows her to work from home. The respondent-
       father is reportedly, working as a General Manager in a construction
       company at Singapore. It seems that the spouses faced marital
       discord in the year 2017 and accordingly, both started living separately
       with occasional attempts at restoring the matrimonial ties. In one
       of these attempts at reconciliation in the year 2021, the appellant
       again conceived and gave birth to the son, who is presently about
       three years of age.
5.     The appellant-mother felt a threat perception that the respondent-
       father may try to forcibly remove the children from her custody. Thus,
       in June, 2024, she filed an original petition, bearing O.P. (G&W)
       No. 1185 of 2024, seeking permanent custody of the children under
       the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 in the Family


1    Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘appellant-mother’.
2    Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘respondent-father’.
2066                                                           [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                                    Supreme Court Reports


       Court, Thiruvananthapuram.3 The said proceedings are still pending
       final adjudication.
6.     The Family Court passed an order dated 7th June, 2024, restraining
       the respondent-father from forcibly removing the minor children from
       the custody of the appellant-mother.
7.     On 22nd July, 2024, the respondent-father filed an application,
       bearing I.A. No. 02 of 2024, seeking interim custody/visitation
       rights of the children in the custody proceedings instituted by the
       appellant-mother. The Family Court vide order dated 7th October,
       2024, granted visitation rights to the respondent-father, permitting
       him to visit and interact with the children from 10:00 a.m. to 01:30
       p.m. on the second Saturday of every month at the Court premises.
       The respondent-father was also permitted to interact with the children
       via video calls from 07:00 p.m. to 07:20 p.m. (IST) on all Saturdays
       except second Saturday.
8.     On 4th November, 2024, the respondent-father preferred an Original
       Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, bearing OP
       (FC) No. 682 of 2024, assailing the order dated 7th October, 2024
       before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.4 The said petition
       came to be decided by the Division Bench of the High Court vide
       order dated 11th December, 2024, providing interim custody of the
       children to the respondent-father on the terms indicated below: -
               “8. Considering the fact that the father also needs the
               custody of the children to have bonding with them till they
               attain the age of 18 years, we would not keep the father
               away from the interim custody of the children, as the
               children require the care and custody of both the spouses/
               parents. Accordingly, we grant fifteen (15) days of custody
               to each in a month till the disposal of the O.P pertaining
               to permanent custody with the following conditions:
                       1. Husband shall file an undertaking regarding
                       taking of the flat on rent bearing No.5A SFS,
                       City space, Thiruvananthapuram, which is
                       fully furnished as well and with regard to the


3    Hereinafter, being referred to as ‘Family Court’.
4    Hereinafter, being referred to as the ‘High Court’.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                            2067

                Arathy Ramachandran v. Bijay Raj Menon


                engagement of a Nanny within a period of
                one week from today.
                2. He will also make arrangement of the vehicle
                for commutation of the children for drop on and
                drop off ie., to and from the flat and the school
                or another place.
                3. He will not take the children away to
                Thrissur. He is at liberty to bring his mother to
                Thiruvananthapuram without the permission of
                this court.
                4. He will ensure that the children are taken
                care healthy and congenial environment and
                there is no lacking in it.
           9. We have been informed that every year there are
           summer vacations in the school from end of March, entire
           April and May and the school reopens on 1st of June. The
           similar arrangement will go on during the said period also.
           10. However it is made clear that whenever there is
           examination, the custody of the children will be with the
           mother only and the custody will be given two weeks prior to
           the examination. The mother will give advance intimation to
           the husband either through whatsapp message or through
           any other mode, regarding the examination.
           11. During the period when the children are in the custody
           of the husband/father, the husband/father will permit
           15 minutes of video call, everyday, to the mother. This
           arrangement will also be carried on by the wife/mother
           when the children will be in the custody of the mother. In
           case of any violation, the liberty is granted to either of the
           parties to move an application. Petitioner-husband/father
           is also directed to undertake parental counselling.”
                                                (Emphasis Supplied)

9.   The appellant-mother has approached this Court through this appeal
     by special leave, assailing the said order of the High Court, granting
     periodical interim custody of both the children to the respondent-father.
2068                                                         [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


10. This Court, while issuing notice vide order dated 6th January, 2025,
    had stayed the operation of the impugned order passed by the High
    Court to the extent of interim custody granted to the respondent-
    father in respect of the minor son, and restored the arrangement
    made by the Family Court in this regard. However, the arrangement
    of interim custody granted to the respondent-father in respect of the
    daughter aged eight and a half years was directed to be continued
    as per the impugned order.
11. On the previous date of the hearing i.e., 2nd April, 2025, the appellant-
    mother appeared in the Court in-person whereas, the respondent-
    father appeared through video conferencing. At that point of time,
    the girl child was in the custody of the respondent-father. From
    8th/9th April, 2025 onwards, the interim custody of the child has been
    restored to the appellant-mother.
12. After hearing both parties and the learned counsel appearing on their
    behalf, we felt that an interaction with the girl child would be essential
    to arrive at a just and fair decision in the matter. Accordingly, the
    matter was directed to be taken up in the Committee Room on 16th
    April, 2025, at 01:30 p.m. and the parties along with their daughter
    were directed to remain present in person.
13. We interacted ‘in camera’ with the litigating parents and also had a
    healthy and satisfying dialogue with the girl child separately. Heard
    the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
14. The appellant-mother has raised serious concerns regarding the
    environment being provided to the daughter during the interim custody
    period of 15 days granted to the respondent-father by the High Court.
    She submitted that though the respondent-father has taken a flat
    bearing No. 5A, SFS, situated in City Space, Thiruvananthapuram,
    on rent and travels from Singapore every 15 days to gain interim
    custody of the child, the other conditions of the High Court’s order
    are not being adhered to by him. Her primary and genuine concern
    was that the respondent-father has not engaged a nanny in terms
    of the High Court’s direction.
15. She further submitted that home cooked food was not being provided
    to the girl child in this period, and that all the meals were procured
    by ordering from restaurants/hotels, etc. She further submitted that
    the child does not have any company whatsoever other than the
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                      2069

                Arathy Ramachandran v. Bijay Raj Menon


     respondent-father and thus, her overall growth and emotional well-
     being is being adversely affected owing to this isolated atmosphere
     due to which the child may even suffer permanent emotional scars.
16. E-converso, the respondent-father has pleaded that he is taking
    care of the child with all the sincerity and intent of a caring parent.
    He travels from Singapore religiously adhering to the timeline fixed
    by the High Court so that he can spend quality time with the child
    and develop a stronger bond with her. He urged that his mother
    often visits the flat at Thiruvananthapuram to provide home cooked
    food to the child and to keep her company. However, the fact that
    a nanny has not been engaged in terms of the High Court order is
    not disputed.
17. He further submitted that he is unequivocally prepared to abide by
    any condition so as to restore the matrimonial ties with the appellant-
    mother. We refrain from adverting to this issue as it is for the spouses
    to find a mutual resolution to this issue.
18. During the course of interaction with the girl child, we found her to
    be very intelligent, expressive and composed. She gave mature and
    well-balanced responses to the queries put by us. She expressed
    her love and affection for both her parents. However, she seemed
    uncomfortable by the 15 days’ periodic custody arrangement dividing
    her time between the father and the mother. She was candid in her
    stand that during the period for which she stayed with the respondent-
    father, all the food which was provided to her had been ordered from
    restaurants/hotels, etc. Not one meal was a home cooked one. She
    also expressed that there is no one to keep her company except for
    her father during this period of 15 days.
19. 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.
20. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles and adverting to the facts of
    the case at hand, we feel that the interim arrangement, as charted out
    by the High Court in the impugned order, granting 15 days’ alternative
    custody of both the children to the parents, is neither feasible nor
    conducive to the well-being, mental and physical, of the children. The
2070                                                         [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     younger of the two children being the son aged about three years,
     has hardly lived with his father, who lives and works in Singapore.
     Thus, directing the custody of the tender aged boy to be assigned
     to the respondent-father, even on an interim basis for a period of
     15 days each month, is grossly unjustified and may have serious
     adverse effects on the emotional and physical well-being of the child
     and may create a sense of deep insecurity in the boy owing to forced
     separation from the mother. The interim arrangement made by the
     High Court to the extent of the three-year-old son is totally uncalled for
     and unsustainable on the face of the record and is hereby set aside.
21. Now, coming to the aspect of interim custody of the eight years
    old daughter to the respondent-father. We feel that the intervening
    circumstances and the information provided by the child during
    interaction fortifies the genuine concern shown by the appellant-
    mother that the environment being provided to the child by the father
    during the interim custody period of 15 days may not be conducive
    to her physical and emotional well-being.
22. It cannot be gainsaid that continued consumption of food procured
    from restaurants/hotels would pose a health hazard, even to a grown-
    up person, what to talk of a tender aged child of eight years. The
    child definitely requires nutritious home cooked food for her overall
    well-being, growth and development. Unfortunately, the respondent-
    father is not in a position to provide such nutrition to the child.
23. We could even have considered giving an opportunity to the
    respondent-father to make suitable arrangements for providing home
    cooked food to the child but the fact that the child gets no company
    whatsoever except for that of the father during the interim custody
    period of 15 days is an additional factor which weighs heavily against
    his claim for the child’s custody at this stage.
24. It cannot be expected that during the periodic custody arrangement,
    the father would be in a position to give continued attention to the
    child for the entire span of time during which he has access to the
    child. He would have to spare time for his job, daily pursuits etc. and
    during this period, the child would be left all alone without anyone
    to keep her company.
25. In contrast, the parents of the appellant-mother are staying with her.
    She has the advantage of the facility of working from home. That
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                      2071

                Arathy Ramachandran v. Bijay Raj Menon


     apart, the younger brother of the girl child is there to provide her
     healthy company. Hence, the emotional and moral support which
     the child gets at her mother’s home is manifold than what is being
     provided by the father during the interim custody period. The period
     of 15 days during which the daughter would be with the father would
     also lead to deprivation of her company to her sibling, the boy child
     aged three years.
26. In this background, we feel that the High Court clearly erred in
    granting interim custody of the children to the respondent-father for
    a period of 15 days every month. The arrangement made by the
    High Court was not arrived at by weighing the pros and cons of the
    situation. The periodic division of custody is definitely adverse to the
    well-being; physical, mental and emotional, of the children. In a long
    run, this arrangement may prove extremely harmful and may cause
    irreversible mental trauma to both the children.
27. Hence, we are of the firm view that the impugned order passed by the
    High Court granting interim custody of the children to the respondent-
    father for a period of 15 days every month is unsustainable on the
    face of record.
28. However, at the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that
    the respondent is a doting father who has shown his keen desire to
    have an equal and effective parenting role in the upbringing of his
    children. Thus, depriving him of the custody of the children in entirety
    is neither acceptable nor justifiable and may destroy all chances of
    family bonding.
29. Hence, in order to provide the respondent-father fair and reasonable
    access to the children, we hereby direct that he shall be entitled to
    interim custody of the daughter on alternate Saturdays and Sundays
    of every month. On either of these two days, the respondent-father
    will be entitled to meet and have interim custody of the boy child
    for a period of four hours subject to the comfort of the child. This
    period of four hours interim custody of the boy shall be supervised
    by a child counsellor, who is to be engaged by the respondent-father
    with prior approval of the family Court. The respondent-father may
    either retain the same flat or take any other suitably furnished flat in
    Thiruvananthapuram town to facilitate the arrangements for interim
    custody. The respondent-father shall make sincere efforts to provide
    home cooked meals to the children during this period of interim custody.
2072                                                      [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


30. The respondent-father shall be entitled to make video call/s for 15
    minutes to both the children on every Tuesday and Thursday, the
    schedule whereof may be fixed by both the parties, either after
    consulting with each other or with the assistance of their respective
    lawyers.
31. The Family Court shall expedite the decision of the Guardianship
    petition, bearing O.P. (G&W) No. 1185 of 2024, filed by the appellant-
    mother.
32. The impugned order dated 11th December, 2024, passed by the High
    Court is reversed. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
33. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain