The Kerala High Court has strongly emphasized that children involved in custody disputes should be brought to court only in unavoidable and exceptional situations. The Court stressed that when required, children must be treated with the highest level of dignity and privacy.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha noted the emotional trauma children face during court appearances. The judges stated that children should not be brought to court casually—even for counselling or legal formalities—unless absolutely essential.
“Children should not be made to wait endlessly at court premises. If they must attend, they should be given preference, depending on the court's workload,” the Court directed.
In its order, the Court also said that custody exchanges—whether interim or final—should take place at neutral locations with mutual consent of both parents, and not at court premises unless there is a strong reason on record.
“Though courts may require a register entry during custody exchanges, it is far better for children if these occur at less formal locations. This reduces their mental strain,” the Bench stated.
During interactions, the judges found that children are uncomfortable and often distressed when brought to courts. Many even described feeling like they were being “paraded like objects.”
“Our experience has shown that children do not like coming to court. They have clearly told us that they feel like articles, not humans,” the Court observed.
The Court also criticized how matrimonial disputes often ignore the emotional well-being of the child. It noted that courts and parents, in the rush of litigation and emotional conflicts, sometimes forget the deep psychological impact on children.
“In their fight for custody, parents tend to overlook the trauma faced by their children. Courts, too, pressed for time and trying to be efficient, may miss showing adequate empathy,” the judgment noted.
Case Background:
The case involved the custody of a 9-year-old boy. Initially, custody was given to the mother by mutual consent. The father later accused the mother of violating the agreement and requested full custody. The Family Court then modified the order, giving custody to the father and limited interim custody to the mother.
Challenging this, the mother approached the High Court, claiming the child was unwilling to go with the father and was undergoing emotional distress. During one hearing, the child was brought to the judges' chamber, where he clung to his mother and refused to interact with his father.
The child also expressed to the judges that he disliked coming to court, saying he felt "dehumanized and stigmatized, being paraded in front of people as a chattel in the custody fight."
In its final order, the High Court restored custody to the mother and also changed the child’s exchange point from the court to a more neutral venue.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates D. Arun Bose, K. Viswan, P. S. Pooja
Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates V. A. Hakeem, Habnam Hakeem, Sivalakshmi K., Alka Maria Martin, Rahul O.
Case No: Mat. Appeal 288 of 2025
Case Title: XX v YY
