The Supreme Court ruled that requiring a non-custodial parent to file repeated applications for visitation rights imposes undue procedural burdens. It held that interim custody arrangements must balance a child’s welfare with both parents’ rights, emphasizing structured access schedules over case-by-case approvals. The judgment establishes that meaningful parent-child contact shouldn’t be hindered by procedural formalities when consistent involvement is demonstrated, particularly in transnational custody cases. The Court directed family courts to implement standing visitation orders pending final custody determinations.
Facts Of The Case:
The case involved a custody dispute between Eby Cherian (appellant), an engineer working rotational overseas postings, and Jerema John (respondent), a homemaker residing in Ernakulam with their daughter born in 2017. After marital discord, the respondent left the matrimonial home with the child in March 2023. The appellant filed for permanent custody in April 2023 before the Family Court, Ernakulam, along with interim visitation applications. The Family Court’s September 2023 order granted daily video calls and permitted overnight custody during the father’s India visits, but required fresh applications for each visitation period. Over the next year, the appellant filed 20+ applications to secure just 37 days of physical access while working in Angola and later UAE. Challenging this “apply-each-time” system, he approached the Kerala High Court seeking a fixed visitation schedule, which dismissed his petition in August 2024 while granting two ad hoc custody periods. The Supreme Court noted the child’s comfort with the father during court interactions and mediation attempts, the appellant’s consistent maintenance payments, and the procedural impracticalities of repeated applications. It ultimately replaced the piecemeal approach with a structured interim arrangement featuring weekend visitations during India stays, shared vacation periods, and regular virtual contact – balancing the child’s stability with the father’s visitation rights pending final custody determination.
Procedural History:
The procedural history began when the appellant filed OP No. 1085 of 2023 before the Family Court, Ernakulam on April 29, 2023, seeking permanent custody of his daughter, along with interim visitation applications (IA Nos. 2 & 4 of 2023). The Family Court’s September 21, 2023 order granted limited access but required fresh applications for each visitation period. Between September 2023-May 2024, the appellant filed over 20 interlocutory applications before the Family Court and four original petitions before the Kerala High Court to secure visitation rights. On August 23, 2024, the High Court dismissed his petition (OP(FC) No. 364 of 2024) challenging the repetitive application requirement, though it granted two specific visitation periods. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court through SLP(C) No. 24419 of 2024, which was converted to Civil Appeal No. [ ] of 2025. During proceedings, the Supreme Court attempted mediation through its Mediation Centre, which proved unsuccessful. The final judgment on May 15, 2025 set aside the High Court’s order and established a structured visitation schedule until final disposal of the custody petition, eliminating the need for repeated applications. The Court directed the Family Court to expedite the pending custody case while implementing the new interim arrangement.
READ ALSO :Supreme Court Backs Arbitrator’s Power to Award Compound Interest :Rules on Interest Calculation in Award Enforcement
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several critical observations while delivering its judgment. It noted that requiring repeated applications for visitation rights created unnecessary procedural hurdles that disadvantaged the non-custodial parent and disrupted the child’s stability. The Court emphasized that a child’s welfare includes meaningful contact with both parents, particularly when the non-custodial parent has demonstrated consistent involvement and financial support. It observed that the Family Court counselor’s report and judicial interactions confirmed the child’s comfort with the father, undermining any justification for restrictive access. The Bench highlighted how the existing arrangement forced the overseas-working parent to exhaust limited leave on litigation rather than parenting. Importantly, the Court recognized that interim custody arrangements must balance practical realities – including a parent’s employment constraints – with a child’s need for predictable routines. It rejected the respondent’s argument that fixed access should await final custody determination, noting that prolonged uncertainty harms the child’s emotional development. The judgment stressed that procedural formalities should not become barriers to parental bonding when no risks to the child’s welfare are established. These observations guided the Court’s decision to replace the case-by-case approach with a structured visitation schedule.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part and set aside the High Court’s order dated August 23, 2024. It established a comprehensive interim visitation arrangement until final disposal of the custody petition (OP No. 1085 of 2023), eliminating the need for repeated applications. The Court granted the appellant weekend custody during India visits (from Saturday 10 am to Sunday 5 pm), equal division of school vacations and festivals (with sequencing determined through parental consultation or court intervention if needed), and thrice-weekly virtual contact while abroad. It mandated neutral-location exchanges and required advance notice of visits without necessitating fresh court applications. The judgment permitted logistical modifications by the Family Court only for materially changed circumstances, while protecting the quantum of access. The Court directed expedited disposal of the pending custody case and disposed of all related applications. Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta delivered the unanimous judgment on May 15, 2025, prioritizing child welfare through stability while safeguarding the father’s visitation rights.
Case Details:
Case Title: Eby Cherian vs Jerema John Citation: 2025 INSC 709 Civil Appeal No.: Arising from SLP(C) No. 24419 of 2024 Date of Judgment: May 15, 2025 Judges: Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Sandeep Mehta
Download The Judgement Here