In a significant judgment on child custody and parental access, the Supreme Court on May 15, 2025, held that meaningful contact with both parents is an integral component of a child’s welfare and cannot be obstructed by procedural hurdles. The Court set aside the Kerala High Court’s order dated August 23, 2024, and issued a structured interim custody arrangement for a non-custodial father working overseas.
The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta delivered the ruling in Eby Cherian vs Jerema John, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 24419 of 2024.
Background
The appellant-father, Eby Cherian, and the respondent-mother, Jerema John, were married on January 10, 2016. Their daughter was born on October 17, 2017. Following a breakdown in the marriage, the respondent left the matrimonial home on March 4, 2023, with the child and has since been her sole caregiver at Ernakulam.
The father, employed abroad on a rotational basis, filed for permanent custody before the Family Court, Ernakulam in O.P. No. 1085 of 2023, and also sought interim visitation rights. On September 21, 2023, the Family Court allowed daily video interaction and one weekend of overnight custody, subject to fresh applications for each visit to India.
Between September 2023 and May 2024, the appellant filed twenty interim applications before the Family Court and four original petitions before the High Court, securing only 37 days of physical access in total.
Arguments
Senior Advocate Ms. Shashi Kiran, representing the appellant, argued that filing fresh applications for each visit was burdensome and impractical, especially given the slow pace of custody litigation. The appellant had shifted from Angola to the UAE to facilitate contact with the child, continued paying ₹20,000 per month in maintenance, and received positive feedback from court counsellors and the Family Court judge about his bond with the child.
The respondent-mother opposed the request for a fixed arrangement, citing her exclusive care since March 2023, concerns over the child’s disrupted routine, and the pendency of the main custody petition.
Court’s Observations
The Court noted:
“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.”
The bench observed that the child was “at ease” with the father, and added:
“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.”
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part and issued a standing interim arrangement, which includes:
- Weekend custody: If the father is in India for at least 7 consecutive days, he will get custody from 10 a.m. Saturday to 5 p.m. Sunday, and if staying longer, alternate weekends too.
- Vacation division: Summer and festival vacations to be equally split, subject to advance coordination.
- Travel restrictions: Child cannot be taken outside Kerala during custody without prior written consent.
- Virtual contact: At least three video calls per week and one extended session every Saturday.
- No need for fresh IAs: The father will no longer need to file separate applications for each visit.
- Notification and logistics: Four weeks’ advance notice of intended visits; absence of objection within 7 days shall be deemed consent.
- Logistical flexibility: Family Court may adjust timing and place of exchanges, but not the quantum of access.
The Court directed the Family Court, Ernakulam, to dispose of the pending custody petition expeditiously. All pending applications were disposed of in terms of these directions.
