Indu S. v. Thomas @ Manoj

Read Judgment : https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/mqlh/

Citation: 2025 (4) KLR 108 : 2025 KER 29544
Court: High Court of Kerala
Judges: Devan Ramachandran, J. & M.B. Snehalatha, J.
Case Number: Mat. Appeal No. 288 of 2025; 2 April 2025

Family Law – Child Custody – Welfare of Child – Trauma from Judicial Process.

Appeal against Family Court order altering custody of 9-year-old child from mother to father. Child, diagnosed with ADHD, exhibited trauma and reluctance to go with father, aggravated by repeated court appearances. 

Held

Child’s welfare is paramount; forcing court appearances and custody exchanges at court premises causes dehumanizing trauma. Family Court erred in modifying consent-based custody without assessing child’s distress. Impugned order set aside, original custody arrangement restored. 

Guidelines issued

Minimize children’s court appearances, ensure dignity and privacy, avoid court premises for custody exchanges unless exceptional circumstances recorded, prefer neutral locations. 

Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali [2019 KHC 6335] followed.

Appeal Against: Order dated 24.01.2025 in I.A. No. 3 of 2023 in O.P. No. 197 of 2018, Family Court, Thalassery

Facts

  • The respondent (father) filed O.P. No. 197/2018 in the Family Court, Thalassery, seeking permanent custody of his 9-year-old child.
  • The Family Court initially granted permanent custody to the appellant (mother) with a consent-based arrangement allowing the father access on specified days and holidays.
  • The arrangement was later modified to change the place of child exchange.
  • The respondent alleged the appellant violated the custody order, filing I.A. No. 3/2023, while the appellant filed I.A. No. 2/2022, seeking modification, claiming the child was unwilling to go with the father.
  • The Family Court, in the impugned order, altered the custody arrangement, granting permanent custody to the father with limited interim custody to the mother.
  • The appellant challenged this order, arguing it was contrary to the child’s wishes and caused him trauma.

Issues

  1. Whether the Family Court’s order altering the custody arrangement was justified.
  2. Whether the child’s reluctance to go with the father was adequately considered by the Family Court.
  3. Whether the judicial process, including the child’s court appearances, caused undue trauma.

Arguments

  • Appellant: The custody arrangement was untenable, against the child’s wishes, and caused him trauma. The child refused to interact with the Family Court judge, indicating distress. The mother argued the child’s court appearances exacerbated his trauma.
  • Respondent: The child’s reluctance was due to the mother’s tutoring. The father claimed the child was comfortable with him, and the Family Court’s order was necessary due to the mother’s non-compliance with prior custody orders.

Observations

  • The High Court interacted with the child, who exhibited extreme reluctance to leave his mother, clinging to her and expressing trauma from court appearances.
  • The child, diagnosed with ADHD, was undergoing professional treatment and showed signs of distress from being involved in parental litigation.
  • The child expressed feeling dehumanized and stigmatized by court appearances, exacerbated by a prior promise from another bench that he would not be summoned again.
  • The Court noted the child’s trauma stemmed not only from parental conflict but also from repeated court appearances, which he found terrifying and humiliating.
  • The Court emphasized the psychological impact of parental conflict on children, citing Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali [2019 KHC 6335], which highlighted the child’s suffering in custody disputes.
  • The Court criticized the Family Court for modifying the custody arrangement without adequately considering the child’s reluctance and trauma, despite noting his unwillingness to interact.

Ratio Decidendi

  • The welfare of the child is paramount in custody disputes, and courts must prioritize the child’s psychological and emotional well-being.
  • Forcing a child to appear in court or participate in custody exchanges at court premises can cause significant trauma, dehumanizing the child and undermining their dignity.
  • The Family Court erred in altering the custody arrangement without fully assessing the child’s reluctance, which indicated his trauma and unwillingness to be with the father.
  • The original consent-based custody arrangement was sufficient, and its modification was unnecessary, as the child’s reluctance was not due to the mother’s actions but his own distress.

Decision

  • The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and restored the original custody arrangement, with the mother retaining permanent custody and the father having access rights.
  • The modification of the exchange location to the Munsiff Court was reversed, restoring it to a neutral location (“Mahatma Mandiram”, Kannur).
  • The Court issued guidelines for Family Courts:
    • Minimize children’s court appearances, ensuring dignity and privacy when unavoidable.
    • Avoid using court premises for custody exchanges unless exceptional circumstances are recorded, preferring neutral locations to reduce trauma.
    • Treat children with empathy, recognizing the distress caused by exposure to judicial processes.

Precedents Relied On

  • Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali [2019 KHC 6335]: Emphasized the psychological impact on children in custody disputes and the need to prioritize their interests.

Significance

The judgment underscores the need for empathy in handling custody disputes, highlighting the traumatic impact of judicial processes on children. It establishes guidelines to protect children from unnecessary court exposure and prioritizes their psychological well-being, reinforcing the parens patriae role of courts.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

  1. What was the primary reason the High Court set aside the Family Court’s order in Indu S. v. Thomas @ Manoj?
    a) The Family Court lacked jurisdiction to modify the custody order.
    b) The Family Court failed to consider the child’s trauma and reluctance to go with the father.
    c) The mother was proven to have tutored the child.
    d) The father did not comply with the original custody arrangement.
    Answer: b) The Family Court failed to consider the child’s trauma and reluctance to go with the father.
  2. What medical condition was the child in the case diagnosed with?
    a) Autism Spectrum Disorder
    b) Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
    c) Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
    d) Anxiety Disorder
    Answer: b) Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
  3. What guideline did the High Court issue regarding the place of custody exchange?
    a) Custody exchanges must always occur in court premises for record-keeping.
    b) Court premises should be avoided for custody exchanges unless exceptional circumstances are recorded.
    c) Custody exchanges should only occur at the child’s school.
    d) Custody exchanges must be supervised by a court officer.
    Answer: b) Court premises should be avoided for custody exchanges unless exceptional circumstances are recorded.
  4. Which precedent was cited by the High Court to emphasize the psychological impact of parental conflict on children?
    a) Shilpa Aggarwal v. Aviral Mittal
    b) Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali
    c) Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal
    d) R.V. Srinath Prasad v. Nandamuri Jayakrishna
    Answer: b) Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali
  5. What was the High Court’s observation about the child’s feelings toward court appearances?
    a) The child was indifferent to court appearances.
    b) The child felt dehumanized, stigmatized, and terrified by court appearances.
    c) The child enjoyed interacting with judges in court.
    d) The child was unaware of the court proceedings.
    Answer: b) The child felt dehumanized, stigmatized, and terrified by court appearances.
  6. What role did the High Court emphasize in handling child custody disputes?
    a) Parens patriae
    b) Mediator
    c) Arbitrator
    d) Guardian ad litem
    Answer: a) Parens patriae
  7. What was restored by the High Court’s judgment?
    a) Permanent custody to the father
    b) The original consent-based custody arrangement with the mother having permanent custody
    c) Joint custody with equal time for both parents
    d) Interim custody to a third party
    Answer: b) The original consent-based custody arrangement with the mother having permanent custody
  8. Why did the High Court criticize the Family Court’s modification of the custody arrangement?
    a) It was based on incorrect legal principles.
    b) It ignored the child’s reluctance and trauma, wrongly attributing non-compliance to the mother.
    c) It lacked consent from both parties.
    d) It violated statutory custody laws.
    Answer: b) It ignored the child’s reluctance and trauma, wrongly attributing non-compliance to the mother.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

  1. What was the main issue in Indu S. v. Thomas @ Manoj?
    The main issue was whether the Family Court’s order, which modified a custody arrangement to grant permanent custody to the father, was justified, given the child’s reluctance to go with him and the trauma caused by repeated court appearances.
  2. What was the High Court’s ruling in this case?
    The High Court set aside the Family Court’s order, restored the original consent-based custody arrangement (permanent custody with the mother and access rights for the father), and issued guidelines to minimize children’s court appearances and avoid court premises for custody exchanges.
  3. Why did the High Court find the Family Court’s order problematic?
    The Family Court failed to adequately consider the child’s trauma and reluctance to go with the father, despite noting his unwillingness to interact. It wrongly assumed the mother’s non-compliance caused the issue, ignoring the child’s distress from judicial processes.
  4. What guidelines did the High Court provide for Family Courts in custody disputes?
    • Children’s court appearances should be minimized and ordered only in exceptional circumstances, ensuring dignity and privacy.
    • Court premises should not be used for custody exchanges unless exceptional reasons are recorded; neutral locations are preferred.
    • Courts must prioritize the child’s psychological well-being and treat them with empathy.
  5. How did the child’s condition influence the High Court’s decision?
    The child’s diagnosis of ADHD, combined with his visible trauma from court appearances and parental conflict, underscored the need to prioritize his psychological well-being, leading the Court to restore the original custody arrangement and issue protective guidelines.
  6. What role did the precedent Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali play in the judgment?
    The High Court relied on Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali [2019 KHC 6335] to highlight the psychological harm caused to children caught in parental custody disputes, reinforcing the need to focus on the child’s best interests.
  7. Why did the High Court emphasize the parens patriae role?
    The parens patriae role was emphasized to underline the Court’s duty to act as a protector of the child’s welfare, ensuring decisions prioritize the child’s emotional and psychological health over parental disputes.
  8. What was the significance of the High Court’s guidelines for future custody cases?
    The guidelines aim to reduce trauma for children in custody disputes by limiting their exposure to court processes, ensuring empathetic treatment, and promoting neutral venues for custody exchanges, setting a precedent for child-centric judicial practices.
  9. How did the child’s reaction in court impact the judgment?
    The child’s extreme distress, refusal to leave his mother, and vocal resentment toward court appearances (feeling dehumanized and stigmatized) were pivotal in convincing the Court to reverse the Family Court’s order and issue guidelines to protect children from similar experiences.
  10. What was the restored location for custody exchange in the case?
    The High Court restored the custody exchange location to “Mahatma Mandiram”, Kannur, a neutral venue, reversing the Family Court’s modification to the Munsiff Court at Kannur.
, , ,
  • ASF Buildtech v. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co.
    Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 7, 11, 16, 21, 23, 37 – Power of Arbitral Tribunal to Implead Non-Signatories – Group of Companies Doctrine – Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal – Notice under Section 21 – Competence-Competence Principle.
  • Analysis of the Drugs and Cosmetics (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2025
    The Drugs and Cosmetics (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2025, notified by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), provide a framework for compounding certain offences committed under the Act.
  • Res Judicata in Criminal Proceedings
    The principle of res judicata, derived from the Latin maxim res judicata pro veritate accipitur (a matter adjudged is taken as true), is a fundamental doctrine in civil law that prevents the re-litigation of issues already decided between the same parties.
  • Krishna Kumar Kedia v. Union of India
    Penal Code, 1860, Sections 407, 420, 465, 471 – Forgery and Misappropriation – Conviction Upheld – Sentence Reduced.
  • Shenbagavalli v. Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District
    Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Essential Ingredients – Absence of Proximity and Instigation – Quashing of Chargesheet.
  • Drugs and Cosmetics (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2025
    These rules may be called the Drugs and Cosmetics (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2025.
  • Kerala State Elderly Commission Act, 2025
    An Act to constitute an Elderly Commission for giving guidelines in matters related to the welfare and protection of the elderly and to enable their rehabilitation and to undertake and carry out schemes and activities necessary for making use of their skills and experience for utilizing it for the general public and to ensure the protection of rights and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
  • Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Welfare Association v. Union of India
    Land Allotment Dispute – Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975
  • Central Bureau of Investigation v. Surendra Patwa
    Administrative and criminal proceedings operate independently; procedural lapses in former do not nullify latter.
  • Principal Chief Conservator of Forest v. Suresh Mathew
    Judicial review in contractual matters limited to cases of mala fides, arbitrariness, or irrationality – Decision to re-tender due to Covid-19 restrictions affecting contractor participation held bona fide and in public interest – No fundamental right to renewal of contractor registration – Government’s discretion to protect financial interests by inviting fresh tenders upheld.