Kerala High Court
Sruthi Ajithkumar vs Ajith Kumar C on 10 July, 2025
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
OP(FC).No.365 of 2025
1
2025:KER:50749
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1947
OP (FC) NO. 365 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.05.2025 IN GOP NO.138 OF
2025 OF FAMILY COURT, ALUVA
PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT IN I.A.NO.3 AND 4 OF 2025 IN
G.O.P.138 OF 2025/1ST RESPONDENT IN G.O.P.NO.138/2025:
SRUTHI AJITHKUMAR
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O A.SOMAN, RESIDING AT SRUTHI NIVAS,
PEECHANIKKADU(S), PULIYANAM P.O, ANGAMALY VILLAGE,
ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683572
BY ADVS.
SMT.R.RANJANIE
SMT.MEERA M.
SMT.SELVA JYOTHY A.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT IN I.A.NO.3 AND 4
OF 2025 IN G.O.P.138 OF 2025/PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT
IN G.O.P.NO.138/2025:
1 AJITH KUMAR C
AGED 43 YEARS
AJITH KUMAR C AGED 43 YEARS, S/O GANGADHARAN,
RESIDING AT &39;ATHIRA&39; ARAKKAPPADAM,
AMARAMBALAM VILLAGE, POOKKOTTUMPADAM TEMPLE ROAD,
OP(FC).No.365 of 2025
2
2025:KER:50749
NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 679332
2 THE PRINCIPAL TOLINS WORLD SCHOOL
NADUVATTOM P.O. AYYAMPUZHA, MALAYATTOOR, PIN -
683587
BY ADVS.
KUM.PAVAN ROSE JOHNSON
SMT.MEREENA.J.JOSEPH
SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR ; SMT MEREENA JOSEPH
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP(FC).No.365 of 2025
3
2025:KER:50749
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The petitioner impugns Ext.P8 order of the learned Family Court, Aluva, to the extent to which it has denied her permission to take her children - who are now aged 13 years and 10 years - with her to Calicut, where she says she has now secured employment.
2. The facts involved in this case - to the extent essential for our consideration - is that the parties are involved in matrimonial strife and there are cases filed by them against each other. The 1st respondent - father of the children filed OP(G&W).No.138/2025 before the learned Family Court seeking their permanent custody, in which, an interim arrangement was made, allowing them to be with the mother pending its final consideration, with visitation rights being reserved in favour of the former, since he is admittedly working in Bangalore.
3. The petitioner - mother, thereafter, on the assertion that she has obtained an employment in an Aided School at Calicut, sought leave of the learned Family Court to shift the children to a school there; but this has been opposed by the OP(FC).No.365 of 2025 4 2025:KER:50749 1 respondent - father on various grounds. st
4. The learned Family Court accepted the plea of the parties partially and injuncted the petitioner - mother, through an order in I.A.No.3/2025 filed by the respondent - father, restraining her from moving the children from their present school and also directing the said school - respondent No.2 herein - from issuing Transfer Certificates. The learned Court also allowed I.A.No.4/2025 in part, allowing the petitioner to remain in custody of the children; but granting the father interim custody over them during the school vacation in May 2025.
5. The petitioner challenges the impugned order as being illegal and unlawful; and asserts that it has virtually restrained her from taking up an employment, which she is entitled to as an individual.
6. Smt.R.Ranjanie, appearing for the petitioner, argued that it is perhaps unwittingly that the learned Family Court has issued orders to the effect of literally clipping the wings of her client - in a manner of speaking - virtually incapacitating her from taking up employment, though she has managed to obtain one in an Aided School at Calicut. She contented that the shifting of the children from Angamaly to Calicut would cause no OP(FC).No.365 of 2025 5 2025:KER:50749 prejudice to the 1 st respondent herein because, he is living in Bangalore, and will have to travel to either of these places from there to visit them. She added that, in fact, it will be more convenient for the petitioner to travel to Calicut, rather than to Angamaly, from Bangalore; and therefore, that the defence now put up by him is highly confutative. She thus prayed that the impugned order, to the extent assailed, be set aside.
7. Sri.V.V.Nandagopal Nambiar - learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, however, submitted that his client is not opposing the transfer of the children for nothing or for his whims; but that he is concerned about their welfare. He pointed out that the elder child is in the 8th standard, while the younger is in the 5th standard and that their transfer from Angamaly, to a new school in Calicut, would be disastrous to them; and that, in fact, they are also not in favour of the same. He then added that his client has been taking care of the children like any father would do, and that he has paid large fees for their education for the current year to the 2nd respondent school; and that this would go waste if they are now sought to be transferred to Calicut, as required by the petitioner. He concluded, saying that the elder child has recently suffered a hairline fracture and that her OP(FC).No.365 of 2025 6 2025:KER:50749 removal to the new school would be, therefore, difficult. He thus prayed that the arrangement ordered by the learned Family Court be maintained.
8. We have considered the afore rival submissions on the touchstone of the various materials on record.
9. It is without contest that the children are in the interim custody of the mother, pending the finalization of GOP; and that the father has been reserved certain rights over them for visitation and custody. No doubt, Sri. V.V.Nandagopal Nambiar informed us, during his arguments, that even the order impugned has been violated by the petitioner - mother, since the children were given to his client only for three days, instead of ten days during their vacation. However, what is relevant in this case is as to the right of the mother to secure employment and to make a living, rather than being dependent on anyone. We have been restating in our judgments that the modern times require to encourage women to be on their feet and to make their own lives, rather than be confined or constrained solely because they fulfill their duties as mothers. We do not think it is necessary for us to reiterate it.
10. As far as the facts of this case are concerned, the OP(FC).No.365 of 2025 7 2025:KER:50749 children are studying in Angamaly; and one of the reasons why the father is opposing their transfer to Calicut is that he has already paid their fees in the 2 nd respondent school; and that he does not want them to be shifted from there because it is one that gives them good education. Of course, he has a case that the elder one has suffered a hairline fracture and therefore, would not be in a position to travel; but which we are certain is not that relevant in these times of advanced mode of travel.
11. Coming to the children, though the petitioner says that they are not happy to be removed from their present school no such has been brought to our information; and in fact, even though we offered that we can talk to them, by summoning them here, Sri.V.V.Nandagopal Nambiar was graceful enough to say that his client does not want them to be subjected to trauma on account of the ongoing litigation between the parties.
12. That said, we notice that Smt.R.Ranjanie has filed a Memo producing therewith an Offer Letter of admission from the "Oxford School" in Calicut, dated 08.07.2025. The said letter records that the children have been registered in the school for availing admission. Indubitably, we do not, therefore, have to be concerned that the children will not have proper education, since OP(FC).No.365 of 2025 8 2025:KER:50749 it is nobody's case that the said school is not good enough.
13. Though being only corollary, we asked Smt.Mereena J. Joseph - appearing for the 2nd respondent, whether, if the children are now shifted out, the 1st respondent would be entitled to be refunded the fees paid by him. She responded, saying that she will not be able to specify what course the school will take in such circumstances; and that the parties will have to approach it appropriately, at which time, an apposite decision will be taken.
14. We must, at this juncture, record the offer of Smt.R.Ranjanie that if the 1st respondent is insisting, then her client is even willing to pay make good loss that he suffers on account of the fees, if the school is not to return the whole, or the part of it.
15. In summation, we have no doubt that the children must be allowed to accompany their mother; and that we cannot constrain the latter from taking employment merely because she fulfills duties as a mother. The transfer of children from one school to the other is not uncommon; and is a facet of life for parents who are in various kinds of employment. The alleged reluctance of the children to move school has not been established; but even if so, we do not think it would be a factor OP(FC).No.365 of 2025 9 2025:KER:50749 to stop the mother from taking up an employment, to make her own life.
16. That apart, we find favour with the submissions of Smt.R.Ranjanie that, even if the children are to be now shifted to Calicut, it would cause no prejudice to the 1 st respondent because he will have to, in any case, travel to Angamaly from Bangalore, to see the children. This is in fact admitted by Sri. V.V.Nandagopal Nambiar also.
17. In the above circumstances, we allow this Original Petition and set aside the impugned order to the extent to which it has restrained the petitioner from transferring the children to a school in Calicut, as also against the 2 nd respondent from issuing Transfer Certificate; and consequently, direct the latter respondent to do so within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
18. We further direct the petitioner to admit the children to the "Oxford School", Calicut, in terms of the offer given by them in Ext.P10 letter; and clarify that in every other manner the impugned order will stand unaltered, particularly with respect to the rights of the father over the children through visitation, interim custody, etc. OP(FC).No.365 of 2025 10 2025:KER:50749 Needless to say, the liberties of the parties to move the learned Family Court for further orders and arrangements are also deferred.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA JUDGE Mms OP(FC).No.365 of 2025 11 2025:KER:50749 APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 365/2025 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION OP(G&W)NO.138/2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 TRUCE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION FILED AS IA NO.3/2025 DATED 12.03.2025, Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN, 1 ST RESPONDENT IN EXT. P-2, Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION FILED BY THE 1 ST RESPONDENT AS IA.NO.4/2025 DATED 12.03.2025, IN EXT. P-1, Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN, 1 ST RESPONDENT IN EXT P4, Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED EVIDENCING PURCHASE OF THE FLAT IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER AND BROTHER OF THE PETITIONER AT KOZHIKODE, Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02.06.2025 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER OF AMMAM UP SCHOOL TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 8.5.2025, PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT AT ALUVA, IN I.A. NO 3/2025 AND I.A. NO 4/2025 IN G.O.P. NO 138/2025, Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OP (FC) 330/2025 DATED 05.06.2025, Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08.07.2025 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE OXFORD SCHOOL, KOZHIKODE