NEETHU B. @ NEETHU BABY MATHEWversusRAJESH KUMAR

                 [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1053 : 2025 INSC 853

                  Neethu B. @ Neethu Baby Mathew
                                 v.
                           Rajesh Kumar
                    (R.P. (C) No(s). 2273-2274 of 2024)
                                      In
                  (Civil Appeal No(s). 5395-5396 of 2024)
                                 15 July 2025
            [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       The petitioner-mother has preferred the instant review petitions
       primarily on the ground that the news of the imminent separation
       of the minor child (aged 11 years old at that time) from his mother,
       who has been his primary guardian since he was an infant, has
       caused an immense negative impact on the mental health of the
       child.

                                  Headnotes†
       Child and Family Welfare – Custody of Child – The High Court
       granted permanent custody of the child to the respondent-
       father while granting virtual visitation rights to the mother
       on every alternative day and physical visitation rights during
       one half of the school holidays, depending on whenever the
       petitioner intends to visit India – Appeals were dismissed
       by the Supreme Court effectively confirming the permanent
       custody of child in favour of the respondent – Petitioner-mother
       filed the instant review petition on the ground that immenent
       separation has caused negative impact on the mental health
       of the child:
       Held: 1. It is directed, inter-alia, that the minor is to remain in
       permanent custody of the petitioner-mother and respondent-father
       is allowed to see and interact with child virtually twice a week –
       The respondent is also permitted to visit child in-person for one
       day every weekend. [Para 36(a)(b)(c)]




* Author
1054                                                           [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


    2. In the instant case, it becomes apparent that the child’s
    deteriorating mental health as a consequence of judicial order
    changing custody is a new development and a direct consequence
    of dismissal of appeals by this Court – Therefore, the change in the
    child’s emotional, mental and overall health, and the psychological
    assessment reports on the record certainly constitute new evidence
    which was not within the knowledge of the review petitioner at the
    time of hearing appeals, and could not have been produced before
    this Court at that time even after due diligence, on account of it
    being a post-decision development – Further, there is no room
    for doubt that in matters of custody, the best interest of the child
    remains at the heart of judicial adjudication and a factor adversely
    impacting the child’s welfare undeniably becomes a matter of such
    nature that has a direct bearing on the decision with the possibility
    to change it – Therefore, in the wake of new facts as detailed
    above, the review petitions at hand are deemed worth entertaining
    u/Art.137 of the Constitution of India and require indulgence of
    this Court. [Para 24]

    Consitution of India – Art.137 – Scope of Review – Custody
    of the Child:
    Held: The universally accepted tenets that such matters (custody
    matters) are to be dealt sensitively with due consideration to the
    emotional, intellectual, physical, financial, social and cultural needs
    of a growing child – Therefore, custody orders are always considered
    interlocutory orders and by the nature of such proceedings, custody
    orders cannot be made rigid and final – Rather, the Courts are
    entitled to alter and mould the custody orders in view of the best
    interest of the minor. [Para 14]

    Custody of the Child – Best Interest of Child – Factors that
    should be considered:
    Held: The factors defining the best interests of a child are
    multiple and range from quality education, a nurturing family
    environment, healthy worldly experiences, provision of basic
    amenities of life, meeting of financial requirements, access to
    a friendly social system to imparting of spiritual and cultural
    learnings – The list is naturally not an exhaustive one – However,
    the essential feature is that a secure, supportive and loving
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                              1055

           Neethu B. @ Neethu Baby Mathew v. Rajesh Kumar


     family forms the bedrock of a healthy childhood experience
     and helps one grow into a balanced, positive and confident
     adult. [Para 25]

                               Case Law Cited
     Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati [2013] 11 SCR 25 : (2013) 8 SCC
     320 – relied on.
     Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan [1965] 1 SCR 933 : AIR 1965
     SC 845; O.N. Mohindroo v. Distt. Judge, Delhi [1971] 2 SCR 11 :
     (1971) 3 SCC 5; State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Kamal Sengupta
     & Ors. [2008] 10 SCR 4 : (2008) 8 SCC 612; Vikram Vir Vohra v.
     Shalini Bhalla [2010] 3 SCR 775 : (2010) 4 SCC 409; Rosy Jacob v.
     Jacob A Chakramakkal [1973] 3 SCR 918 : (1973) 1 SCC 840;
     Athar Hussain v. Siraj Ahmed [2010] 1 SCR 49 : (2010) 2 SCC
     654 – referred to.

                                 List of Acts
     Constitution of India.

                              List of Keywords
     Article 137 of Constitution; Power of Review; Custody of the Child;
     Child welfare; Role of Courts in custody matters; Mental health of
     child; Custody matters; Psychological assessment reports; Factors
     defining the best interests of a child.

                              Case Arising From
     INHERENT JURISDICTION: R.P. (C) No(s). 2273-2274 of 2024
     In Civil Appeal No(s). 5395-5396 of 2024
     From the Judgment and Order dated 22.08.2024 of the Supreme
     Court of India in C.A. Nos. 5395 and 5396 of 2024

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Petitioner(s):
     Ms. Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv., Vishnu Sharma A.S., Ms. Bagarathy
     Vennimala.
     Advs. for the Respondent(s):
     Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv., S.j. Amith, Ms. Vidushi Garg, Dr. Mrs. Vipin
     Gupta.
1056                                                       [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     Vikram Nath, J.

1.   The instant review petitions have been preferred by the original
     appellant in Civil Appeal No(s). 5395-5396/2024, wherein the present
     petitioner’s appeals assailing the common final judgment and order
     dated 17.10.2023 in MAT Appeal No. 815/2022 and MAT Appeal
     No. 252/2023 passed by the High Court of Kerala were dismissed
     by this Court, vide order dated 22.08.2024.
2.   The brief factual background leading to the instant petitions is
     necessary before we delve into the reason for employing the review
     jurisdiction of this Court which is otherwise sparingly exercised.
3.   The marriage was solemnised between the petitioner-wife and
     respondent-husband on 04.09.2011 in accordance with Hindu rites
     and rituals, and a boy was born out of the wedlock on 07.11.2012.
     However, differences arose between the parties soon after, they
     started living separately from 22.10.2013 onwards and eventually
     decided to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent. Accordingly, an
     agreement based on mutual understanding was executed by both
     the parties on 13.09.2014 regarding the terms of divorce as well as
     the custody of the minor child. As per the terms and conditions of
     the said agreement, custody of the minor child was agreed to remain
     with the petitioner-mother and the respondent-father was granted
     visitation rights on two Saturdays in a month. A joint divorce petition
     was filed by the parties which was allowed by the Family Court,
     Attingal, Kerala on 26.06.2015 in terms of the mutual agreement.
4.   Thereafter, the petitioner got remarried with one Handel Thomas
     on 18.08.2016. The said Handel Thomas had two children from his
     earlier marriage, and they have attained the age of majority as of
     date. Subsequently, one more child was born to the petitioner and
     Handel Thomas out of the wedlock. The petitioner was living with
     her husband and the minor children at Thiruvananthapuram at the
     relevant time.
5.   It is the respondent’s account of events that he remained unaware
     about the whereabouts of the petitioner and his minor son for the
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                              1057

           Neethu B. @ Neethu Baby Mathew v. Rajesh Kumar


     period between 2016-19 and could not find petitioner’s residential
     address despite his best efforts. It is only in October 2019 when the
     petitioner contacted the respondent, in order to get his signatures on
     certain affidavits to obtain relevant documents for the minor son’s
     international travel, that the respondent became aware about the
     factum of petitioner’s remarriage and her intentions to relocate the
     minor son to Malaysia. The relocation of the minor child along with
     the petitioner to Malaysia was intended on account of it being the
     place where the petitioner’s second husband had secured a gainful
     employment opportunity in the capacity of a Senior Manager in a
     multinational company. As per the respondent, upon inquiry, he
     also subsequently became aware that the child’s religion has been
     changed from Hindu to Christian by the petitioner without any consent
     or knowledge of the respondent.
6.   Hence, in light of the above developments, the respondent filed
     OP(G&W) No. 2353/2020 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram
     seeking permanent custody of the minor child. The said petition
     was subsequently transferred to Family Court, Ottapalam at the
     instance of the petitioner, who also preferred a counterclaim to seek
     permission to be able to take the minor child outside India in order
     to rejoin her husband.
7.   The Trial Court, vide judgment dated 31.10.2022, rejected the
     respondent’s prayer for the custody of the child, granted permanent
     custody and guardianship of the minor to the petitioner and extended
     visitation rights to the respondent in following terms:
           “In the result, original petition is allowed in part and counter
           claim is allowed and a decree is passed as follows:
           1.   The prayer of the petitioner for permanent custody
                of the minor child is disallowed.
           2.   The petitioner is allowed to see and interact with the
                minor child on all 2nd and 4th Saturdays from 2 p.m.
                to 4 p.m. at the premises of the court.
           3.   The respondent/mother is directed to produce the
                minor child before the Chief Ministerial Officer/in-
                charge of this court on all 2nd and 4th Saturdays at 2
                p.m. and to hand over the custody to the petitioner/
                father for interaction upon 4 p.m.
1058                                                        [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          4.    The petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/-
                (Thousand rupees only) to the respondent on all
                interaction days towards the travel and other expense
                of the child.
          5.    Counter claim is allowed and the respondent is
                appointed as guardian of the minor child Ryan Handel
                (R.S. Sreejesh Nair) and permanent custody of the
                minor child is given to the respondent/mother.
          6.    The respondent is permitted to take the minor child
                with her to abroad during Onam and Christmas
                holidays and 30 days period summer vacation.
          7.    In case, the respondent takes the minor child with
                her to abroad during the above period, then before
                leaving, the respondent shall submit a statement
                before this court as to the details of country, place
                of residence with address, duration of stay, etc. and
                shall also file a statement after arrival before this
                court as to the date of arrival.
          8.    The parties shall bear their respective costs”
8.   Both the parties filed their respective appeals against the order of the
     Family Court before the High Court. The High Court disposed of both
     the appeals, vide order dated 17.10.2023, and granted permanent
     custody of the child to the respondent while granting virtual visitation
     rights to the mother on every alternative day and physical visitation
     rights during one half of the school holidays, depending on whenever
     the petitioner intends to visit India. This was done considering the
     fact that relocation of the child to Malaysia would not be in the best
     interest of the child since he has a stable and well-settled life over
     here.
9.   Aggrieved by the change in permanent custody, the petitioner filed
     SLP (C) Nos. 25528-25529/2023 before this Court, wherein post
     issuance of notice on 24.11.2023, an interim order dated 29.01.2024
     was passed directing the petitioner-mother to ensure that the child
     meets the respondent on every Saturday or Sunday between 2 p.m.
     and 4 p.m. in Ottapalam. The said interim arrangement was continued
     in the meanwhile by way of multiple subsequent orders. Leave was
     granted in the matter on 22.04.2024 which converted the special
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                      1059

             Neethu B. @ Neethu Baby Mathew v. Rajesh Kumar


     leave petitions to Civil Appeal No(s). 5395-5396 of 2024. However,
     the appeals were eventually dismissed by this Court on 22.08.2024,
     thereby effectively confirming the permanent custody of the child in
     favour of the respondent.
10. Consequently, the petitioner has preferred the instant review petitions
    against the dismissal of appeals primarily on the ground that the
    news of the imminent separation of the minor child (aged 11 years
    old at that time) from his mother, who has been his primary guardian
    since he was an infant, has caused an immense negative impact
    on the mental health of the child. The contention was supported by
    the Clinical Psychologist’s Report dated 03.09.2024 which revealed
    the minor child to be indicating anxiety and fears, with a high risk
    for separation anxiety disorder. The detailed contents of the said
    report shall be discussed in the latter part of the judgment. It was
    also further contended in the said petitions seeking review that it was
    after the dismissal of appeals by this Court when the respondent
    had a conversation with the minor child, wherein the respondent
    allegedly administered certain threats regarding separation of the
    child from his mother. It was claimed that these alleged remarks
    and threats by the respondent have triggered a detrimental impact
    on the child’s psychological health. Therefore, in view of the new
    factual developments, this Court’s interference was sought by way
    of these review petitions.
11. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by this Court
    is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when
    circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it
    necessary to do so.1 This Court may also reopen its judgment if a
    manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order
    to do full and effective justice.2 This Court has been conferred the
    power to review its judgments by Article 137 of the Constitution of
    India, which is subject to the provisions of any law made by the
    Parliament or the rules made under Article 145 of the Constitution
    of India. The scope of a review is usually considered very limited,
    and the grounds for maintainability of a review petition have been



1   Sajjan Singh v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845
2   O.N. Mohindroo v. Distt. Judge, Delhi (1971) 3 SCC 5
1060                                                             [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


     succinctly summarized by this Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma v.
     Mayawati3 as follows:-
            “20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
                       (i)    Discovery of new and important matter or
                              evidence which, after the exercise of due
                              diligence, was not within knowledge of the
                              petitioner or could not be produced by him;
                       (ii)   Mistake or error apparent on the face of the
                              record;
                       (iii) Any other sufficient reason.
            20.2.      When the review will not be maintainable:
                       (i)    A repetition of old and overruled argument is
                              not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
                       (ii)   Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
                       (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with
                             the original hearing of the case.
                       (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the
                            material error, manifest on the face of the
                            order, undermines its soundness or results
                            in miscarriage of justice.
                       (v)    A review is by no means an appeal in disguise
                              whereby an erroneous decision is reheard
                              and corrected but lies only for patent error.
                       (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the
                            subject cannot be a ground for review.
                       (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record
                             should not be an error which has to be fished
                             out and searched.
                       (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is
                              fully within the domain of the appellate court,
                              it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the
                              review petition.


3   (2013) 8 SCC 320
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                             1061

             Neethu B. @ Neethu Baby Mathew v. Rajesh Kumar


                        (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same
                             relief sought at the time of arguing the main
                             matter had been negatived.”
12. The principle has also been illuminated upon in the case of State of
    West Bengal & Ors. v. Kamal Sengupta & Ors.4, wherein it has
    been held that this Court, before entertaining review on the ground
    of discovery of new matter or evidence is required to record its
    satisfaction about three aspects, which can also be called as “triple
    test” i.e., (i) new matter/evidence discovered is of such nature which
    could change the judgment (ii) such new matter/evidence was not
    within the knowledge of the party seeking review (iii) same could not
    be produced before court even after due diligence. When any of the
    conditions of the test, as laid down above is not fulfilled, “discovery
    of new matter/evidence” ipso facto would not be sufficient ground
    for the Court to interfere with the finality of the judgment.
13. As such, it is established that the power of review jurisdiction is to be
    used in a restrained manner and only in circumstances as illustrated
    above. Hence, we are cognizant of the heavy burden that is to be
    fulfilled by this Court while entertaining a review petition.
14. Further, since the case at hand is a custody matter, it becomes
    imperative for us to lay down the universally accepted tenets that
    such matters are to be dealt sensitively with due consideration to the
    emotional, intellectual, physical, financial, social and cultural needs
    of a growing child. Therefore, custody orders are always considered
    interlocutory orders and by the nature of such proceedings, custody
    orders cannot be made rigid and final.5 Rather, the Courts are entitled
    to alter and mould the custody orders in view of the best interest
    of the minor.6
15. The core and inalienable standard is the paramount consideration of
    the child’s welfare, which is affected by an array of factors, is ever
    evolving and cannot be confined in a straitjacket. Therefore, each
    case has to be dealt with on the basis of its unique facts and take
    into account any change in circumstances which have an impact on
    the quality of a child’s upbringing.


4   (2008) 8 SCC 612
5   Vikram Vir Vohra v. Shalini Bhalla, 2010 (4) SCC 409
6   Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A Chakramakkal, (1973) 1 SCC 840
1062                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


16. In light of the aforesaid legal principles surrounding review jurisdiction
    of this Court and the role of Courts in custody matters, it is a
    natural corollary that judicial discretion has to be properly balanced
    between the statutory provisions that advocate for limited exercise
    of review powers and the peculiar care that needs to be extended
    by the Courts in matters of child custody. We sincerely believe that
    undertaking a far too hyper technical approach in such cases shall
    indeed amount to abandoning the doctrine of parens patriae and will
    cause travesty of justice.
17. Ms. Liz Mathew, learned senior counsel appearing for the review
    petitioner, has contended that the instant petitions have been filed
    solely in the paramount interest of the child as the judicial verdict
    in favour of change of custody has caused a drastic impact on the
    mental health of the child which may seriously affect him during his
    formative years and can potentially be irreversible if due regard is
    not exhibited in time. The said impact is argued to be manifestly
    evident in the psychology expert reports prepared by the Psychiatry
    Department of Christian Medical College, Vellore7 after psychologically
    evaluating the child.
18. The initial report of the psychologist dated 03.09.2024, which has been
    produced as Annexure P/1 before us, reflected the minor child to be
    undergoing anxiety and fears with a high risk for separation anxiety
    disorder. In the said report, for the sake of mental and emotional
    well-being of the child, it was further recommended by the clinical
    psychologist to avoid separating the minor from his current family
    and to conduct regular sessions to evaluate his mental status and
    provide psychotherapy.
19. It was this calamitous effect of the judicial order on the child’s health
    that had evoked this Court to list the instant review petitions for an
    open court hearing and further consider if the circumstances merited
    this Court’s interference. We have heard the review petitions as well
    as the civil appeals on merits.
20. During the course of arguments, the learned senior counsel for the
    petitioner submitted that in the present case, the child has been in
    the exclusive care of the petitioner-mother ever since the couple


7   CMC, Vellore
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                         1063

           Neethu B. @ Neethu Baby Mathew v. Rajesh Kumar


     separated in October 2013, i.e. when the child was barely eleven
     months old. Since then, the child has only met with the respondent
     a handful of times and has never spent even one night apart from
     his mother, alone with the respondent. In such circumstances, taking
     the drastic step of changing custody would amount to upsetting his
     familiar environment and taking a huge leap over the usually accepted
     norm of gradual modification in cases of custody. It is contended
     that this is especially so in light of the fact that, since the respondent
     did not avail visitation rights since 2014, the child has not had the
     opportunity to form a bond with his biological father.
21. The child’s psychological assessment at CMC, Vellore continued
    during the pendency of the review petitions and four medical reports
    dated 03.09.2024, 19.10.2024, 07.01.2025, and 29.03.2025 have
    been produced before us. All the four reports have indicated the
    child to be undergoing significant anxiety, difficulty in coping with
    the emotions and separation anxiety due to the looming threat of
    custody change in the child’s head. It has been advised throughout
    these reports by experienced psychologists and psychiatrists at CMC,
    Vellore, to provide the child with a stable and emotionally supportive
    environment during this time of distress. Further, it has been strongly
    cautioned that any disruption in the existing support systems can
    further deteriorate the emotional well-being of the child.
22. On the other hand, Ms. Kiran Suri, learned Senior Counsel for
    the respondent has contended that the present case does not fall
    within the parameters for exercise of review jurisdiction. It has been
    submitted that the clinical psychologist report cannot be relied upon to
    decide the mental well-being of the child as the basis of such report
    is the history, symptoms and information provided by the mother and
    the stepfather to the concerned doctor. Further, it has been argued
    that the petitioner had intentionally withheld the child’s whereabouts
    from the respondent for the period August 2016 to October 2019.
    It is for this reason that the respondent could not make frequent
    visits to the minor child and the petitioner should not be permitted
    to take advantage of her own wrong. Lastly, it was submitted that
    the respondent is a government servant, has not remarried and is,
    therefore, fully capable of providing a stable and financially secure
    environment for the child with undivided focus on his upbringing.
23. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material
    on record in great depth.
1064                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


24. Firstly, it becomes apparent that the child’s deteriorating mental
    health as a consequence of judicial order changing custody is a new
    development and a direct consequence of dismissal of appeals by
    this Court. Therefore, the change in the child’s emotional, mental
    and overall health, and the psychological assessment reports on the
    record certainly constitute new evidence which was not within the
    knowledge of the review petitioner at the time of hearing appeals,
    and could not have been produced before this Court at that time
    even after due diligence, on account of it being a post-decision
    development. Further, there is no room for doubt that in matters of
    custody, the best interest of the child remains at the heart of judicial
    adjudication and a factor adversely impacting the child’s welfare
    undeniably becomes a matter of such nature that has a direct bearing
    on the decision with the possibility to change it. Therefore, in the
    wake of new facts as detailed above, the review petitions at hand
    are deemed worth entertaining under Article 137 of the Constitution
    of India and require indulgence of this Court.
25. The minor child in question is presently twelve years old and at
    the cusp of adolescence. The factors defining the best interests of
    a child are multiple and range from quality education, a nurturing
    family environment, healthy worldly experiences, provision of basic
    amenities of life, meeting of financial requirements, access to a friendly
    social system to imparting of spiritual and cultural learnings. The list
    is naturally not an exhaustive one. However, the essential feature is
    that a secure, supportive and loving family forms the bedrock of a
    healthy childhood experience and helps one grow into a balanced,
    positive and confident adult.
26. In the present case, it remains undisputed that the child has remained
    in the exclusive care of the petitioner since the age of eleven months
    old. He understands and accepts her to be his primary caregiver and
    support system. In fact, a perusal of the psychological assessment
    reports brings forth that in moments of distress and heightened
    emotions, the child seeks refuge in his mother’s arms and finds her
    presence to be calming. Therefore, there is no denial of the fact that
    the petitioner-mother remains a great source of comfort and safety
    to the minor child.
27. Additionally, the petitioner got remarried when the child was not
    even four years old. The fortunate repercussion has been that the
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                        1065

           Neethu B. @ Neethu Baby Mathew v. Rajesh Kumar


     child, ever since his preschool days, recognizes his stepfather to be
     a part of the family and considers him to be an essential paternal
     figure in his life. It has come on record that the stepfather has also
     openly extended a shield of affection and care towards the minor and
     has undertaken before various Courts a commitment to provide an
     educationally sound upbringing to the child to the best of his financial
     capabilities. The petitioner and her husband also appear to be people
     of means, thereby securing the financial aspect of upbringing.
28. Further, the second child born to the petitioner out of her current
    wedlock is also perceived by the minor son in question as his sibling
    and he shows a great amount of fondness for his younger brother.
    Therefore, it becomes quite evident that the minor child recognizes
    his mother, half-brother and stepfather to be his immediate family
    and feels utterly secure in that setting. There is nothing on record
    to reflect that the petitioner’s subsequent marriage or the birth of
    the second child has, in any manner, altered her level of motherly
    devotion to the minor in question. The child is also shown to reflect
    excellent academic performance at his school and there is nothing
    worrisome about his educational needs as well.
29. Therefore, in our considered opinion, there is nothing on record to
    draw an adverse inference against the current family setup of the
    child, merely on account of it being a modern rendition of familial
    concept. Rather, it can be seen that the child’s best interests are
    being taken care of well in the current setting.
30. At the same time, the desire of the biological father of the minor, i.e.
    the respondent, to become an active part of the child’s life cannot
    be discounted. It is right of both the parents to contribute to their
    child’s robust upbringing and share a bond of care and affection
    with their offspring. It is also in the best interest of the child to have
    the presence of both his parents in his life, which ensures a more
    holistic development and formation of sound emotional connections.
31. Even though the petitioner contends that the respondent has made
    no serious efforts to be involved in the child’s life ever since their
    separation and has visited the child hardly twelve times in the last
    eleven years, the respondent’s contention remains that such an
    absence was caused due to the petitioner pro-actively keeping the
    child away from the biological father. We find it futile to submerge
    ourselves in the midst of these contentions as the fact remains that
1066                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                                Supreme Court Reports


     the child has not had a real chance to form an emotional bond with
     his biological father.
32. The High Court’s order of granting permanent custody of the minor
    to the father was based on the belief that the mother’s relocation of
    the minor to Malaysia would practically amount to uprooting his life
    in Kerala and may cause a severely negative impact on the child
    in his growing years. The same consideration had weighed heavily
    with this Court while dismissing the appeals.
33. However, the psychological reports on record make it absolutely
    clear that the minor’s normative universe comprises his current
    family setting, primarily and especially involving his mother who
    has been the child’s sole caregiver for the past eleven years. In
    such circumstances, the change in permanent custody shall also
    essentially amount to upending the very core of the stable and
    familiar environment in which the child currently lives and prospers.
    This enormous transition cannot be said to be conducive to the best
    interest of the child, as it is reflective from his current mental status.
    It has rather been quite damaging to his welfare.
34. The stability and security of the child is an essential ingredient for the
    full development of the child’s talent and personality.8 Even most of
    the well grown adults do not perceive sudden and huge changes in
    their lives very comfortably and often exhibit symptoms of distress
    when confronted with such an imminent change to their regular life.
    It would be extremely harsh and insensitive for the courts of law to
    expect the child to accept and flourish in an alien household where
    his own biological father is akin to a stranger to him. We cannot
    turn a blind eye to the trauma that is being inflicted on the child in
    consequences of the orders of the courts of law handing custody
    to the father, who is alleged to exhibit apathy towards the tender
    emotional state of the minor.
35. Therefore, in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, we
    firmly believe that permanent custody of the minor child should remain
    with the petitioner-mother. However, the respondent-father’s intention
    and efforts to become actively involved in his child’s life cannot be
    ignored and he needs to be given a material opportunity to develop
    a connection with his minor son. It shall be done in the form of
    granting him visitation rights, and such visitation rights will provide


8   Athar Hussain v. Siraj Ahmed, (2010) 2 SCC 654
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                          1067

           Neethu B. @ Neethu Baby Mathew v. Rajesh Kumar


     the child with a space to start being at ease in his father’s presence
     at a comfortable pace, as opposed to an immediate transition in
     custody. This approach is intended to ensure the welfare of the child
     and assist him in forming a child-parent bond with both his parents.
36. Accordingly, we issue the following directions governing the custody
    and visitation rights of both the parties with regard to the minor child:
     a)    The minor child is to remain in permanent custody of the
           petitioner-mother.
     b)    The respondent-father is allowed to see and interact with the
           child virtually twice a week for thirty minutes each. The exact
           time of such virtual interactions is to be worked out between the
           parties after giving due consideration to the child’s educational
           schedule and otherwise. During such virtual sessions, the
           petitioner is directed to provide an interference-free environment
           to the child and respondent, and ensure that she does not
           meddle in such conversations.
     c)    The respondent is also permitted to visit the child in-person for one
           day every weekend. The respondent shall be allowed to spend
           time with the child between 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. every Saturday or
           Sunday, as may be convenient to both the parents and the child.
     d)    For the purpose of physical visitation, the petitioner is directed
           to produce the minor child before the Chief Ministerial Officer/
           in-charge of the Family Court, Ottapalam on every Saturday
           at 10 a.m., who is to hand over the custody to the respondent
           for seven hours, as mentioned above.
     e)    The petitioner is strictly restrained from changing the current
           place of residence of the minor to outside India. She shall be
           allowed to take the child with her to abroad only during Onam,
           Christmas and for 50% of the period of the total days of the
           child’s summer vacations.
     f)    In case, the petitioner takes the minor child with her to outside
           India during the above period, then at least two weeks prior
           to the date of leaving, she is directed to submit a statement
           before the Family Court, Ottapalam as to the details of the
           country, place of residence with address, duration of stay etc.,
           and shall also file a statement after arrival before the Family
           Court, Ottapalam as to the date of arrival.
1068                                                       [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     g)   On occasions of foreign travel, the petitioner is also directed
          to share the above-mentioned details with the respondent via
          e-mail, at least ten days prior to the date of said travel.
     h)   Considering the current vulnerable emotional health of the minor
          child, the petitioner is directed to continue to keep the child
          under the care and observation of the psychologists with routine
          sessions as it as an evolving situation. Since the respondent
          intends to become an active participant in the child’s life, he is
          also directed to partake in the counselling sessions and apprise
          himself of the emotional and mental well-being of the child.
     i)   The parties are mandatorily directed to seek a re-assessment
          of the child’s health at CMC, Vellore, within three months from
          this order, i.e. before 31st October 2025.
     j)   The respondent is not being granted any over-night stay
          permission or longer visitation rights to the child at this point
          in time. However, this is subject to change, provided there are
          positive developments in interaction between the respondent
          and the minor-son. The said positive changes should be
          reflected by the child’s behaviour and comfort level as well
          as the psychological examination reports. If such favourable
          changes are reported, the respondent shall be at liberty to
          prefer an application before this Court seeking modification of
          the present order and more flexible visitation rights.
37. Before parting with the judgment, we find it relevant to remind both
    the parents of their primary responsibility towards child’s nurturing,
    which can be achieved by effective communication and smooth
    execution of the above arrangement, while exhibiting mutual respect.
    The parties are advised not to let their bitter past experience impede
    the child’s well-being, especially given the sensitive emotional state
    of the tender child. The petitioner is advised to encourage the child
    to accept and welcome both the parents in his life for a well-rounded
    development.
38. The petitioner has also contended that the respondent has allegedly
    administered threats upon the minor child regarding taking him away
    permanently from his mother and that, such threats have triggered
    the deteriorating mental health of the child. While we refrain ourselves
    from commenting on the alleged threats because their factum has
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                      1069

             Neethu B. @ Neethu Baby Mathew v. Rajesh Kumar


     been strongly opposed by the respondent and it remains to be a
     matter of evidence, we strongly advise and caution the respondent-
     father against making any kind of insensitive or crude remarks to the
     child. Further, the respondent cannot immediately expect the child to
     develop a parental bond with him abruptly after such a long absence.
     A father-son relation can only be fostered patiently over the course of
     years, marked by his continued presence and responsibility-bearing
     attitude, and nurtured with boundless love, care and empathy.
39. Lastly, I.A. No. 54350 of 2025 was filed by the petitioner seeking
    directions to the Family Court to avoid calling the minor child to Court
    premises in the execution of custody proceedings pending before the
    Family Court. Even though the said execution proceedings shall be
    rendered infructuous in light of the instant judgment, if there arises
    any subsequent proceeding before the Family Court, we recommend
    the Court to afford due care while ordering the physical presence
    of the child in Court premises. This is considering the fact that the
    child has already faced colossal emotional impact in the courts of
    law and might not respond well in such circumstances. Therefore,
    the physical presence of the child is advised to be avoided unless
    absolutely necessary.
40. Accordingly, the instant review petitions are allowed and this Court’s
    order dated 22.08.2024 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5395-5396 of 2024 is
    recalled and the civil appeals are restored to their original numbers.
    Further, the civil appeals are allowed. Subsequently, the High Court’s
    order dated 17.10.2023 stands set aside, whereas the conditions
    imposed by the Trial Court, vide order dated 31.10.2022, are re-
    affirmed apart from the visitation arrangement which stand modified
    as per the instant judgment. It is directed that the custody of the
    child shall remain with the petitioner while the respondent shall have
    visitation rights in terms of the above stipulations.
41. Interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Review petitions allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan