EBY CHERIANversusJEREMA JOHN

                  [2025] 6 S.C.R. 202 : 2025 INSC 709

                                 Eby Cherian
                                      v.
                                 Jerema John
                       (Civil Appeal No. 6924 of 2025)
                                  15 May 2025
               [Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the
       High Court upholding the interim custody arrangement made by
       the family court.

                                   Headnotes†
       Family law – Custody of child – Interim-custody arrangement
       by the family court – Challenge to – Marital discord between
       respondent-wife and the appellant-husband – Respondent
       left the matrimonial home, and since then the child
       exclusively in her care – Appellant employed on rotational
       overseas assignments, filed petition seeking permanent
       custody of the child, and during pendency sought interim
       visitation – Family Court held that as and when the petitioner
       is available here, he may move necessary application for
       getting overnight custody – Thereafter appellant, was
       required to file a separate interlocutory application on every
       visit to India – Appellant sought single definitive interim
       schedule – High Court declined to set aside an interim-
       custody arrangement made by the Family Court, and directed
       the appellant to continue moving a fresh application each
       time he visited India for overnight access to his minor
       daughter – Justification:
       Held: Arrangement devised by family court, requiring the appellant
       to file a fresh IA on every visit to India, places an undue procedural
       burden on both the father and, by necessary implication, the minor
       child – Custody litigation at family court generally proceeds at a
       measured pace and compelling repetitive applications for the same



* Author
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                               203

                        Eby Cherian v. Jerema John


     relief reduces the child’s time, exhausts the father’s limited leave,
     and invites avoidable conflict at every turn – Meaningful contact
     with both parents is an integral component for the child’s welfare –
     Where a non-custodial parent demonstrates consistency to be with
     the child, pays maintenance, and arranges his professional life
     around the child’s calendar, as the appellant has done, procedure
     ought not to stand in the way of a predictable schedule – Child
     cannot be left to the vagaries of piecemeal orders – Structured
     timetable, sensitive to her routine and the appellant’s overseas
     posting, is thus imperative – It is just and equitable to replace the
     family court’s arrangement with a standing interim arrangement
     that balances stability with the appellant’s right to regular contact –
     Impugned order set aside – Directions issued governing interim
     access until final disposal of the petition or until further orders
     of family court. [Paras 15-20]

                              List of Keywords
     Permanent custody of child; Interim-custom arrangement; Definitive
     interim arrangement; “Apply-each-time” arrangement; Daily video
     interaction; Separate interlocutory application; Overnight custody;
     Meaningful contact with both parents; Custody litigation; Child’s
     welfare; Vagaries of piecemeal orders; Structured timetable; Marital
     discord; Rotational overseas assignments; Interim visitation; Single
     definitive interim schedule regarding custody.

                             Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6924 of
     2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2024 of the High Court
     of Kerala at Ernakulam in OPFC No. 364 of 2024

                          Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Petitioner:
     Ms. Shashi Kiran, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, Dr. Satish
     Chandra, Ms. Sangeeta Bhalla, Ms. Ashna Singh, Ms. Anju Sen.
     Advs. for the Respondent:
     Abhinay, Ms. Sumati Jund, Ms. Kirti Vyas
204                                                        [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

       Vikram Nath, J.

1.     Leave granted.
2.     The present appeal assails the judgment dated 23 August 2024
       of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in O.P. (FC) No. 364 of
       2024. By the impugned order the High Court declined to set aside an
       interim-custody arrangement made by the Family Court, Ernakulam
       on 21 September 2023 in O.P. No. 1085 of 2023, and directed the
       appellant–father to continue moving a fresh application each time
       he visited India for overnight access to his minor daughter.
3.     The essential background may be stated briefly. The parties were
       married on 10 January 2016. The appellant is a graduate engineer
       who has spent most of his career on rotational overseas assignments,
       initially in Angola and, since 27 August 2024, in the United Arab
       Emirates, returning to India during scheduled breaks. The respondent-
       mother, a homemaker, resides with the child at Ernakulam.
4.     Their daughter, Manna Ann Eby, was born on 17 October 2017.
       Following marital discord, the respondent left the matrimonial home
       with the child on 4 March 2023, and since then the child has remained
       exclusively in her care at Ernakulam. On 29 April 2023 the appellant
       instituted O.P. No. 1085 of 2023 before the Family Court, Ernakulam,
       seeking permanent custody of the child. Pending that petition he
       filed applications for interim visitation.
5.     The Family Court, by a common order dated 21 September 2023 on
       I.A. Nos. 2 & 4 of 2023, recorded that the child was comfortable in
       the company of the appellant, permitted daily video interaction from
       8 p.m. to 8.30 p.m., granted one weekend of overnight custody, and
       observed that “as and when the petitioner is available here, he may
       move necessary application for getting overnight custody.”
6.     Thereafter the appellant, who is employed overseas on a rotation
       basis, was required to file a separate interlocutory application
       (hereinafter IA) on every visit to India. Between September 2023 and
       May 2024, he filed numerous interim applications before the Family
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                        205

                      Eby Cherian v. Jerema John


     Court and four original petitions before the High Court, cumulatively
     obtaining only 37 days of physical access during one academic year.
7.   Contending that the “apply-each-time” arrangement of the Family
     Court caused uncertainty, financial strain, and loss of leave, the
     appellant approached the High Court under Article 227 of the
     Constitution by O.P. (FC) No. 364 of 2024, praying for a single,
     definitive interim schedule not exceeding fifty per cent of the child’s
     vacations and all weekends when he is in India, together with
     continued daily video calls.
8.   The respondent opposed the petition, submitting that any standing
     arrangement should await the trial in O.P. No. 1085 of 2023. She
     maintained that the Family Court had already afforded liberty to seek
     access as and when required.
9.   The High Court dismissed the petition but, by way of ad hoc relief,
     directed interim custody from 10 a.m. on 24 August 2024 to 5 p.m.
     on 26 August 2024 and again from 10 a.m. on 14 September 2024
     to 5 p.m. on 17 September 2024, with exchange at the respondent’s
     residence and freedom for the mother to interact telephonically during
     the child’s stay with the father.
10. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the appellant filed the
    present appeal before us praying for a definitive interim arrangement
    for his visitation schedule with the child.
11. During the pendency of these proceedings, this Court referred
    the matter to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre to explore a
    mutually acceptable interim arrangement. However, despite multiple
    comprehensive sessions, no settlement could be reached and the
    mediation was closed without agreement.
12. In this backdrop, the limited grievance before us is whether, pending
    adjudication of O.P. No. 1085 of 2023, the High Court and the Family
    Court were justified in compelling the appellant to seek overnight
    custody through successive IAs on every visit to India, instead of
    framing a structured interim-access schedule that duly balances
    the welfare of the minor child with the rights and obligations of both
    parents.
13. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Ms. Shashi Kiran, has
    advanced the following contentions:
206                                                             [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       (i)    It is submitted that the requirement to file a fresh IA on every
              visit is impracticable, as custody suits in Kerala often last three
              to four years; the arrangement breeds uncertainty for the child
              and imposes recurring expense on the appellant.
       (ii)   The appellant contends that he resigned his Angola assignment
              on 24 April 2024 and, having accepted employment in the United
              Arab Emirates on 6 August 2024, now requires a settled interim
              timetable to plan leave and international travel.
       (iii) It is submitted that between September 2023 and May 2024,
             the appellant filed twenty IAs before the Family Court and four
             original petitions before the High Court, yet secured only thirty-
             seven days of physical access, each application being hotly
             contested and exhausting his limited leave.
       (iv) The appellant relies on the Family-Court counsellor’s report and
            the interaction with judge of the Family Court, both noting that
            the child is comfortable with him, and therefore urges regular
            weekend contact and an equal share of school vacations as
            conducive to her emotional development.
       (v)    It is submitted that the appellant has remitted maintenance
              of ₹20,000 per month since September 2023 yet receives no
              information about the child’s schooling or health, impairing
              meaningful parental involvement.
       (vi) Finally, the appellant contends that the respondent’s recurrent
            seizures and certain health concerns observed in the child while
            solely in her care reinforce the necessity of predictable periods
            of custody with him pending final adjudication.
14. The Counsel for the respondent has rendered the following
    submissions:
       (i)    It is asserted that from the very outset the marital relationship
              was strained and that the respondent was subjected to mental
              and physical harassment by the appellant and his family, which
              ultimately compelled her to leave the matrimonial home with
              the child on 4 March 2023. Since that date she has been the
              sole caregiver, meeting all physical, emotional, educational and
              medical needs of the daughter, and maintains that the child’s
              stable routine should not be disrupted by extended or frequent
              transfers of custody.
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                        207

                       Eby Cherian v. Jerema John


     (ii)   The respondent emphasises that the appellant works abroad
            for prolonged periods and, notwithstanding his recent change
            of employment, remains unable to provide day-to-day care and
            she contends that the child’s welfare is therefore best served
            by continuing in her exclusive custody.
     (iii) The respondent argues that the custody petition, O.P. No. 1085
           of 2023, is pending trial, and argues that any fixed long-term
           arrangement should emerge only after evidence is recorded
           and the matter finally decided.
15. Having heard the counsels for both the parties and on perusing
    the record, we are persuaded that the arrangement devised by the
    Family Court, requiring the appellant to file a fresh IA on every visit
    to India, places an undue procedural burden on both the father
    and, by necessary implication, the minor child. Custody litigation at
    Family Court generally proceeds at a measured pace and compelling
    repetitive applications for what is, in essence, the same relief reduces
    the child’s time, exhausts the father’s limited leave, and invites
    avoidable conflict at every turn.
16. The Family-Court counsellor and the Judge’s own interaction
    recorded that the child is at ease with the appellant. No circumstance
    subsequent to that finding has been shown to diminish the benefit the
    child derives from the father’s company. Meaningful contact with both
    parents is an integral component for the child’s welfare. We believe
    that where a non-custodial parent demonstrates consistency to be with
    the child, pays maintenance, and arranges his professional life around
    the child’s calendar, as the appellant has done in the present case,
    procedure ought not to stand in the way of a predictable schedule.
17. The High Court’s reluctance arises mainly from the expectation
    that O.P. No. 1085 of 2023 would go to trial on 18 September
    2024. However, the matter is still pending as on the date of this
    judgement. In the interregnum, the child cannot be left to the vagaries
    of piecemeal orders. A structured timetable, sensitive to her routine
    and the appellant’s overseas posting, is thus imperative.
18. While the respondent’s apprehensions are noted, they may be met
    through reasonable logistical safeguards. We therefore consider it
    just and equitable to replace the Family Court’s arrangement with
    a standing interim arrangement that balances stability with the
208                                                             [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


       appellant’s right to regular contact. We have taken into account,
       the child’s tender age, her schooling in Ernakulam, the appellant’s
       rotational employment abroad, and the need to minimise travel and
       hand-overs.
19. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part.
20. The impugned order dated 23 August 2024 is set aside to the extent
    indicated below, and in substitution thereof the following directions
    shall govern interim access until final disposal of O.P. No. 1085 of
    2023 or until further orders of the Family Court:
       (i)    Whenever the appellant is in India for at least 7 consecutive
              days, he shall be entitled to custody of the child from 10 a.m.
              on the first Saturday of that stay until 5 p.m. on the following
              Sunday, and, if his stay exceeds a further week, for the alternate
              weekend on the same timings. Exchange shall take place at
              a neutral public spot in Ernakulam to be agreed between the
              parties or, failing agreement, at the main gate of the Family Court.
       (ii)   Summer vacations shall be divided into two contiguous segments
              of equal days each: the first with the respondent; the second with
              the appellant, provided he is present in India. If the appellant
              is abroad during the second segment, those days shall lapse
              without carry-over.
       (iii) Each festival vacation shall be divided into two contiguous blocks
             of equal days for the custody. Before 30 days of the holiday
             dates, the parties shall consult, by e-mail or messaging, and
             endeavour to agree which parent will take the first block and
             which will take the second block, keeping the child’s comfort
             and the appellant’s travel plans in view. If they reach agreement,
             that arrangement shall prevail and if they do not agree within
             seven days of initiating consultation, either party may, by a
             short application, seek the Family Court’s determination of the
             sequence.
       (iv) The parent with whom the child is spending a vacation block
            shall not take her outside Kerala without the written consent
            of the other parent, communicated by e-mail together with the
            proposed itinerary at least forty-eight hours in advance.
       (v)    While the appellant is abroad, the parties shall facilitate video
              calls on at least 3 weekdays from 8 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. IST, and
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                         209

                          Eby Cherian v. Jerema John


             an additional virtual session on Saturdays from 11 a.m. to 12
             noon IST for collaborative activities.
     (vi) No fresh IAs before the Family Court shall be required for the
          subsequent visitation periods for the appellant.
     (vii) The appellant shall e-mail the Family-Court registry and the
           respondent at least four weeks before his intended arrival in
           India, specifying the weekends and, if applicable, the vacation
           block for which he seeks custody. Absence of objection within
           seven days shall be deemed consent. Any scheduling dispute
           shall be listed before the Family Court for summary resolution
           within ten days, confined strictly to logistics.
     (viii) The Family Court may, upon application, vary the logistics
            (place and timing of exchange) but not the quantum of access,
            only if materially changed circumstances such as the child’s
            schooling hours, significant travel distances, or the appellant’s
            posting, so require.
21. The Family Court, Ernakulam is requested to adjudicate O.P. No.
    1085 of 2023 as expeditiously as possible.
22. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the above
    directions.

     Result of the case: Appeal partly allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain