Rehan Khan
On 22nd April 2025, the Kerala High Court recently issued comprehensive guidelines urging family courts to exercise utmost restraint while summoning children amidst custody disputes. The Division-Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha underscored the psychological impact such proceedings can have on minors caught in the middle of their parents’ legal battles.
The Bench observed that frequent court appearances inflict deep emotional strain on children, who often feel like pawns in their parents’ disputes. “Our experience has shown that children are unwilling to go to Courts, or to be taken there under orders; and many of them have told us, in unequivocal expression of angst, that they feel that they are being paraded as articles, rather than as humans,” the Court remarked.
Accordingly, the High Court directed that children should not be summoned to court unless it is absolutely unavoidable. In cases where their opinion or presence is necessary, the Court recommended using video conferencing tools, and insisted that such interactions be “brief, respectful and structured to avoid discomfort.”
The Bench further emphasized that when a child’s physical presence becomes necessary, utmost care must be taken to ensure they are treated with dignity and privacy. They should not be made to wait for long hours, and their appearance must be scheduled keeping the Court’s workload in mind. “We, therefore, order that, except in exceptional and unavoidable circumstances, the presence of children in Court Halls and in public areas of the Court premises – even for the purpose of counselling, or such other statutory proceedings – be ordered sparingly and with great caution,” the Court directed.
Additionally, the High Court discouraged the use of court premises for custody exchanges. “When it comes to the place of exchange of the child for interim or final custody, we order that the use of the Court premises… be avoided, unless exceptional reason is recorded; and a neutral place be thought of – preferably as per consent of parties – since this will, to a large extent, reduce the strain of the children and their fear,” the Court said.
The judgment arose from a case involving a custody battle between a woman and her estranged husband over their nine-year-old son. Initially, permanent custody was granted to the mother through mutual consent. However, the family court later reversed this arrangement, awarding custody to the father and giving the mother only limited interim custody.
Challenging this modification, the mother approached the High Court, arguing that the altered arrangement was against the child’s wishes and had caused him severe trauma. She claimed that her son was unwilling to live with his father. On the other hand, the father’s counsel alleged that the child’s aversion stemmed from being tutored by the mother.
The High Court, however, found the father’s arguments unconvincing. It shifted focus to the child’s experience during court proceedings, noting that the boy was “terrified and agonized not on account of the proceedings between his parents; but because, he has been caught in between and has been forced to appear in Courts every now and then.” The child, it noted, expressed feeling “dehumanized and stigmatized, being paraded in front of people as a virtual chattel of dispute.”
The Court also noted that the child, who was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), had been especially vulnerable to emotional distress caused by repeated court appearances. Disturbingly, it was recorded that a prior assurance by another Bench that the child would not be summoned again had been broken, further eroding his trust in the legal system.
Ultimately, the High Court allowed the mother’s appeal and reinstated the original custody order in her favour. It also ordered that future custody exchanges should take place at Mahatma Mandiram instead of the Munsiff Court at Kannur, to minimize the emotional impact on the child.
Highlighting the broader implications of such custody battles, the Court observed that children exposed to parental conflict often suffer long-term psychological consequences. “Children who see hostility between parents are shown to have lower satisfaction levels in their own relationships in future… smaller children who have gone through high conflict of their parents are less able to solve problems, negotiate interpersonal relationships and have higher levels of social anxiety,” the Bench noted.
The judgment concluded with strong directives to all family courts across the state to “refrain from seeking the child’s physical presence unless absolutely necessary.” The Bench’s approach reflects a compassionate, child-centric lens in custody adjudication, one that recognizes the vulnerabilities and mental well-being of children navigating familial discord.
Advocates D Arun Bose, K Viswan, and PS Pooja appeared for the mother. Advocates VA Hakeem, Habnam Hakeem, Sivalakshmi K, Alka Maria Martin, and Rahul O represented the father.
Click here to access the judgment.
Instagram: Click here
LinkedIn: Click here
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com
