Kerala High Court
Sumesh vs Divyasree on 18 September, 2025
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2025:KER:69916
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 27TH BHADRA, 1947
OP (FC) NO. 529 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.08.2025 IN OP NO.387 OF 2019
OF FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA
PETITIONERS/PETITIONER:
1 SUMESH
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, CHITHIRA HOUSE, SOUTH
EZHIPRAM,VAZHAKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, KERALA,
PIN - 683105
2 MURALEEDHARAN NAIR P. K
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O. CHANDRAN PILLAI, CHITHIRA HOUSE, SOUTH
EZHIPRAM, ERNAKULAM, KERALA,
PIN - 683105
BY ADVS.
SMT.SADHANA KUMARI ESWARI
SHRI.AKHIL SOMAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
DIVYASREE
AGED 41 YEARS
D/O. PANKAJAKSHAN NAIR, SREESAILAM HOUSE, VENGOLA
KARA, ARAKKAPADY VILLAGE, VALAYANCHIRANGARA BHAGAM,
THADIYITTAPARAMBU, ERNAKULAM RURAL, KERALA,
OP(FC).No.529 of 2025
2
2025:KER:69916
PIN - 680308
BY ADV SMT.ANITHA MATHAI MUTHIRENTHY
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP(FC).No.529 of 2025
3
2025:KER:69916
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran,J.
Though the petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order of the
learned Family Court, Muvattupuzha, on various grounds, we are
spared of writing a detailed judgment for the singular reason that,
when the parties were before us today, along with the child, a
consensus between them has been obtained.
2. No doubt, the parties have severe matrimonial strife
and the hapless child has been caught in between. However, we
are told that the child is now 16 years in age and is attempting his
"Entrance Examination" for a Medical Course, undergoing intensive
training at a Specialized Centre; and that he is disturbed by the
incursions into his life caused by being called to Court and made to
stand to answer charges, for which he is not responsible.
3. As we have said above, the parties were before us; and
we interacted with them and the child.
4. The child certainly comes across as a brilliant boy, fully
equipped to be a Doctor with heart; and he told us that he does
not wish to be disturbed while he is studying, by either of his
parents. He explained that the Centre where he is now pursuing
2025:KER:69916
his studies for the entrance examination, has specific protocols and
strict timings, during which, no student can either talk to their
parents or meet them. He, nevertheless, told us that he is willing
to share his number with his father, who can call him at specified
times, as he will provide him; and gave us an assurance that he
will talk and interact with him without any feeling of ill. He added
that, even today, when he has been forced to come to this Court,
he has lost valuable classes and that he fears that this will finally
take a toll on his studies.
5. We, thereupon, gave an opportunity to the father to
talk to the child for several hours within the premises of this Court.
Thereafter, also, the boy reiterated the afore.
6. The challenge against Ext.P3 is on the ground that the
1st petitioner has been given only an exiguous period of time in
interim custody over the child; and that the place of exchange has
been fixed to be the Court complex, which is contrary to the
declarations of this Court in Indu.S. v. Thomas @ Manoj [2025
(3) KHC 295].
7. However, since the boy is already 16 years in age and
at a stage where he is fully capable of taking his own decisions, we
2025:KER:69916
see no reason to force him to do something. As correctly
apprehended him, by being asked to go to Court, or any other
place on judicial directions, certainly would go to impede his
studies and curricular schedule, which we do not propose to do.
When the boy tells us that he is willing to talk to the father on
phone any time, but at his convenience and that he will fix the
dates on which they can meet and talk to each other outside; but
making it luculent to us that he abhors being summoned to Court
or being asked to go there on specified times, we find it absolutely
necessary and apposite to shift the liberties in his favour, so that
the parties can also find peace.
8. After all, it is not when a child mechanically acts under
orders of Courts - which has an element of convulsion that a
parent finds fulfillment, but when he acts under desire and seeks
his / her company, as one would normally do.
9. The child in this case shows no ill will to his father,
except saying that he should not be bothered by unnecessary calls
and requests for meetings.
10. Pertinently, Smt.Sadhana Kumari Easwari, appearing
for the father, submitted that her client's intent is only to talk to
2025:KER:69916
and meet the child whenever possible and not to cause him any
prejudice; and hence that he fully accedes to the directions of this
Court in the afore perspective.
11. Since Smt.Anitha Muthirenthy - learned Counsel for
the respondent - mother, also did not oppose what the child has
told us, we deem it necessary that we intervene.
12. In the afore circumstances, this Original Petition is
allowed; and the impugned judgment is modified with the following
directions:
a) We allow the 1st petitioner - father to talk to the child
on the phone number 9496046430 (which has been given to us by
the learned Counsel for the mother), subject to the protocols of
the Institute where he is studying and on the days which is
permitted, ensuring that this will not cause prejudice to his
curricular or extracurricular activities.
b) We leave it to the young boy to take decisions as to
when he would like to see the father and in what manner; and we
are sure that his assurance before us would not be violated by
him.
We close this judgment, wishing the young boy all the
2025:KER:69916
very best in life and waiting for him to be a "Doctor of hearts",
exhibiting empathy and understanding; and also hope that he will
not be in any manner impeded by the experiences which he has
had to endure on account of the marital strife of his parents.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B. SNEHALATHA,
JUDGE
Mms
2025:KER:69916
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 529/2025
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GUARDIAN O.P
387/2019 FILED BEFORE HON'BLE FAMILY
COURT , MUVATTUPUZHA
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION IN THE
GUARDIAN OP 387/2019 AT HON'BLE FAMILY
COURT MUVATTUPUZHA
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
22.08.2025 IN I.A. NO. 15/2025 OF O.P.
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM APPLICATION
(IA 15/2025 IN OP 387/2019)
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
24/12/2019 IN OP(FC) 769/2019
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
20/01/2020 IN OP(FC) 6/20
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
18/02/2025 IN OP(FC)86/25
