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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
