The Supreme Court exercised its review jurisdiction under Article 137 of the Constitution, emphasizing the limited scope of review and the paramount consideration of the child’s welfare in custody matters. The Court recalled its earlier order, restoring custody to the mother while granting visitation rights to the father, citing the child’s mental health and stability as decisive factors. The judgment reaffirmed that custody orders are interlocutory and subject to modification based on the child’s evolving best interests, aligning with the doctrine of parens patriae. The Court underscored the necessity of a stable environment for the child’s holistic development and cautioned against abrupt changes in custody arrangements.
Facts Of The Case:
The case involves a custody dispute between Neethu B. (mother) and Rajesh Kumar (father) over their minor son, born in 2012. The couple separated in 2013 and divorced by mutual consent in 2015, with custody granted to the mother and visitation rights to the father. The mother remarried in 2016 and later sought to relocate to Malaysia with the child, prompting the father to file for permanent custody in 2020, alleging she had concealed the child’s whereabouts and changed his religion without consent. The Family Court initially upheld the mother’s custody but permitted limited visitation for the father. The High Court reversed this, granting permanent custody to the father, citing the child’s stable life in India. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the mother’s appeal but later reviewed its decision based on new evidence—psychological reports indicating severe anxiety and separation trauma in the child due to the custody change. The Court restored custody to the mother, emphasizing the child’s emotional well-being and stable family environment, while granting structured visitation rights to the father. The judgment highlighted the child’s best interests as paramount and cautioned against abrupt disruptions to his life.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of the case began with the Family Court, Attingal, Kerala, granting divorce by mutual consent in 2015 and awarding custody of the minor child to the mother, Neethu B., with visitation rights for the father, Rajesh Kumar. In 2020, the father filed OP(G&W) No. 2353/2020 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking permanent custody, which was later transferred to the Family Court, Ottapalam. The Family Court, in its 2022 judgment, reaffirmed the mother’s custody but imposed conditions on travel and visitation. Dissatisfied, both parties appealed to the High Court of Kerala, which reversed the Family Court’s decision in 2023, granting permanent custody to the father. The mother then filed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court, which were converted into Civil Appeal Nos. 5395-5396/2024. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the appeals in August 2024 but later entertained review petitions (R.P. (C) Nos. 2273-2274/2024) based on new psychological evidence highlighting the child’s deteriorating mental health. In its July 2025 judgment, the Supreme Court allowed the review, set aside the High Court’s order, and restored custody to the mother while modifying visitation rights for the father, prioritizing the child’s welfare and emotional stability.
READ ALSO :Supreme Court Overrules Precedent on Power of Attorney Validity in Property Sales
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several key observations while delivering its judgment. It emphasized that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody disputes, overriding all other claims. The Court noted that the child’s mental health had significantly deteriorated due to the impending custody change, as evidenced by psychological reports from CMC Vellore, which diagnosed anxiety and separation-related distress. It observed that the child, having lived exclusively with the mother since infancy, viewed her as his primary caregiver and derived emotional stability from her presence. The Court acknowledged the father’s legitimate desire to bond with his son but stressed that abrupt custody changes could cause irreversible harm to the child’s well-being. It also highlighted that custody orders are inherently flexible and must adapt to the child’s evolving needs. Critically, the Court cautioned against insensitive remarks or coercive tactics by either parent, urging cooperation to ensure the child’s holistic development. Ultimately, it ruled that stability and emotional security favored restoring custody to the mother, while granting structured visitation to the father to foster a gradual parent-child relationship.
Final Decision & Judgement:
In its final judgment, the Supreme Court allowed the review petitions and set aside its earlier order dated 22.08.2024, thereby restoring permanent custody of the minor child to the mother, Neethu B., while granting structured visitation rights to the father, Rajesh Kumar. The Court modified the Family Court’s 2022 order by permitting the father virtual interactions twice weekly and in-person visits every weekend, subject to the child’s comfort and schedule. It imposed strict conditions on the mother’s international travel with the child, requiring prior court disclosure of travel details and limiting such trips to specific holiday periods. The Court mandated continued psychological counseling for the child, with both parents participating in the process, and directed a reassessment at CMC Vellore within three months. Emphasizing the child’s best interests, the judgment prohibited overnight stays with the father for the time being but left room for future modifications based on the child’s evolving emotional response. The High Court’s 2023 order granting custody to the father was overturned, and the parties were urged to prioritize the child’s welfare over personal grievances. The Court’s decision reaffirmed the interlocutory nature of custody orders and the need for judicial flexibility to address a child’s changing circumstances.
Case Details:
Case Title:Neethu B. @ Neethu Baby Mathew vs. Rajesh Kumar Citation:2025 INSC 853 Civil Appeal No.:Civil Appeal Nos. 5395-5396 of 2024 Date of Judgment:July 15, 2025 Judges/Justice Name:Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Download The Judgement Here