Kerala High Court
Dr. Lekshmi G.S vs Dhanooj. R on 27 June, 2025
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2025:KER:46931
MAT.APPEAL NO. 548 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 548 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2025 IN IA 15/2025 IN OPGW
NO.1469 OF 2022 OF FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
DR. LEKSHMI G.S.
AGED 40 YEARS
D/O. GOPAKUMARI,'SARASWATHY', KARIVAYAL, VAMANAPURAM
P.O. , VAMANAPURAM VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695606
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN
SMT.MINI GANGADHARAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 DHANOOJ. R,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, MURUKKUVELIL HOUSE, V-KOTTAYAM
MURI, VALLICODE, KOTTAYAM P.O. , PATHANAMTHITTA-, PIN -
689656
2 RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
AGED 80 YEARS
FATHER OF DHANOOJ ,MURUKKUVELIL HOUSE, V-KOTTAYAM MURI,
2025:KER:46931
MAT.APPEAL NO. 548 OF 2025
2
VALLICODE, KOTTAYAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-, PIN - 689656
3 SANTHAKUMARIYAMMA,
AGED 70 YEARS
W/O. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, MURUKKUVELIL HOUSE, V-KOTTAYAM
MURI, VALLICODE, KOTTAYAM P.O. , PATHANAMTHITTA., PIN -
689656
BY ADVS.
SHRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
SMT.APARNA NARAYAN MENON
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:46931
MAT.APPEAL NO. 548 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN (J)
The appellant has preferred this Appeal
against the judgment of the learned Family
Court, Pathanamthitta, but only to the extent
to which it has ordered that she shall not
leave India without obtaining its leave.
2. The learned counsel for the
appellant - Smt.Mini Gangadharan, argued that
her client is required to be abroad for 60 to
90 days in connection with her employment; but
that this has been rendered impossible on
account of the aforementioned constraint in
the impugned judgment. She conceded that the
learned Family Court may have had the best
interest of the child in mind, while it
ordered that she will continue with the
2025:KER:46931
MAT.APPEAL NO. 548 OF 2025
appellant - mother, and not with the maternal
grandparents alone; but added that this is now
causing her client extreme and unnecessary
vexation. She thus prayed that the judgment of
the learned Family Court, to the extent to
which it is impugned, be modified.
3. Smt.Thulasi K.Raj - learned
counsel for the respondent, in response,
submitted that the attempt of the appellant is
to go abroad, thus leaving the latter
permanently in the exclusive care of her
paternal grandparents; and that this is
exactly what that the learned Family Court has
prevented through the judgment. She explained
that, the appellant has been restrained from
going abroad because this will leave the child
with the company of neither of the parents;
2025:KER:46931
MAT.APPEAL NO. 548 OF 2025
and that this is inequitable, when the
respondent - who is her father, is available.
Interestingly, however, to a pointed question
from this Court, Smt.Thulasi K.Raj conceded
that his client is abroad in connection with
his employment.
4. We have no doubt that, in an
abstract sense, the submissions of Smt.Thulasi
K.Raj is without error. The learned Family
Court has made the arrangement in the judgment
in such manner that the child will be in the
custody of the mother, along with her
grandparents; but not in the exclusive custody
of the latter. This cannot be found fault
with; however, the learned Family Court then
proceeds to order that the appellant shall not
leave India without its leave.
2025:KER:46931
MAT.APPEAL NO. 548 OF 2025
5. We fail to understand why it was
so directed because, this constraints her from
going abroad even for a short duration, either
for employment or otherwise.
6. We are without doubt that the
restriction imposed by the learned Family
Court should not apply when the travel of the
mother is not of a permanent nature - either
abroad or within India.
7. Pertinently, as noticed earlier,
it is admitted by Smt.Thulsi Raj that her
client is also abroad. If that be so, one
certainly cannot fathom the dichotomy in the
view taken by the learned Family Court,
restraining the mother from even travelling
abroad for short duration; though we
appreciate its concern that it is perhaps to
2025:KER:46931
MAT.APPEAL NO. 548 OF 2025
ensure that the child is not left permanently
in the custody of the maternal grandparents.
In such perspective, we allow this
Appeal and clarify that the direction of the
learned Family Court can only be construed
that the appellant shall not leave India
permanently, or shift forever to a country
outside, without its leave. As far as her
requirement to travel outside or within India,
for short duration, it shall not be hit by the
restriction in the judgment; and we clarify
so.
As a corollary, we direct the learned
Family Court to release the passport of the
appellant to her immediately, after she makes
an application to such effect; and further
order that she need not return the same for
2025:KER:46931
MAT.APPEAL NO. 548 OF 2025
safe custody to the Court, since she will now
be bound by our directions above.
Needless to say, if there is any
violation of our above directions, then the
benefit of the judgment will lost to the
appellant and she will be obligated to
surrender the passport to the learned Family
Court in terms of the impugned judgment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B. SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
SAS
2025:KER:46931
MAT.APPEAL NO. 548 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF MAT.APPEAL 548/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE I FOR TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
REFERENCE PASSPORT,FOR REFERENCE.
ANNEXURE II FOR TRUE COPY OF EMPLOYMENT IDENTITY
REFERENCE - CARD/RESIDENCE PERMIT ISSUED TO ME FROM
POLAND FOR REFERENCE
ANNEXURE III FOR THE TRUE COPY OF O.P.(G&W) NO: 1469/2022 ON
REFERENCE THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
DATED 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022.
ANNEXURE IV FOR THE TRUE COPY OF O.P TICKET FOR THE ELDER
REFERENCE - CHILD DHAKSHA ISSUED FROM THE TALUK HOSPITAL,
KONNI DATED 02/0.5/2025
ANNEXURE V FOR THE TRUE COPY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION BY
REFERENCE- THE PSYCHOLOGIST DATED 06/05/2025
ANNEXURE VI FOR TRUE COPY OF THE FORMAL LETTER FROM HER
REFERENCE- EMPLOYER REQUIRING HER IMMEDIATE RETURN DATED
31/05/2025
ANNEXURE VII FOR TRUE COPY OF THE AIR TICKET DATED 13/06/2025
REFERENCE FROM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
ANNEXURE VIII FOR TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT EXECUTED
REFERENCE- BETWEEN THE RECTOR OF THE LODZ UNIVERSITY OF
TECHNOLOGY BEGINNING FROM 01/01/2024 F
ANNEXURE IX FOR
THE TRUE COPY OF SURRENDER CERTIFICATE.
REFERENCE-
ANNEXURE X FOR THE TRUE COPY OF THE SURRENDER CERTIFICATE
REFERENCE ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL PASS[PORT OFFICER
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE XI FOR TRUE COPY OF I.A NO:15/2025 IN O.P NO:
REFERENCE 1469/2022 OF THE FAMILY COURT PATHANAMTHITTA,
DATED 25/05/2025
