In a notable child custody ruling, the Supreme Court of India has set aside a Kerala High Court order that mandated shared custody of an 8-year-old girl between her separated parents. The apex court granted full custody to the mother, citing concerns over the child’s health, emotional well-being, and nutrition while staying with the father.
The matter involved a couple living separately, with a legal battle ensuing over the custody of their minor daughter. The Kerala High Court had earlier directed that the child should spend 15 days each month alternately with the mother and the father. However, this arrangement was challenged and eventually brought before the Supreme Court.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta interacted with the child and closely examined the circumstances of her living conditions. The bench observed that during the 15 days spent with her father, the child was deprived of home-cooked food. The father, who works in Singapore, would travel back and forth each month and stay with the child in a rented accommodation in Thiruvananthapuram. During this time, meals would typically be from restaurants or fast-food outlets, with no provision for home-prepared nourishment.
The bench highlighted a poignant aspect: despite being treated with affection by her father, the child missed basic familial comforts, especially nutritious home-cooked meals and the companionship of her 3-year-old younger brother, who stayed with the mother. The Court found that the father’s lifestyle and living setup, although well-intentioned, were not conducive to the child’s holistic development.
Justice Sandeep Mehta, while delivering the judgment, noted:
“Even an adult’s health can deteriorate from continuous consumption of restaurant food. An eight-year-old child, in her growing years, requires nutritious, home-cooked meals for proper health and development. Sadly, the father is not in a position to provide this.”
The Court also remarked that while it could have considered directing the father to ensure availability of home-cooked meals, the fact that the child had no company other than the father during her stay added to the concern. The lack of emotional and social support was an additional factor weighing against the father’s custody claim.
“This is an additional aspect that weighs against granting custody to the father. A child needs not only nutrition but also emotional security and familial surroundings,” the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court’s earlier directive and ordered that the child remain in the custody of her mother. The decision brought evident relief to the mother, who had raised concerns about her daughter’s diet and isolation while with the father.
This ruling once again underscores the Supreme Court’s child-centric approach in custody battles, prioritising the health, emotional welfare, and developmental needs of minors over procedural balance or shared parenting, especially where circumstances are unequal.
