[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Divya P.V vs Sarath Gopalakrishnan on 19 February, 2026
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2026:KER:15093
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 30TH MAGHA, 1947
OP (FC) NO. 89 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.01.2026 IN IA 2/2026 IN OP NO.1780
OF 2023 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR
PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:
1 DIVYA P.V.,
AGED 44 YEARS
D/O. VIJAYAN NAIR, PULICKALATH HOUSE, MEVELLOOR P.O.,
MEVELLOOR KARA, VELLOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT., PIN - 686609
2 VIJAYAN NAIR,
AGED 73 YEARS
S/O. MADHAVAN NAIR, PULICKALATH HOUSE, MEVELLOOR P.O.,
MEVELLOOR KARA, VELLOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT., PIN - 686609
3 PONNAMMA,
AGED 70 YEARS
W/O. VIJAYAN NAIR, PULICKALATH HOUSE, MEVELLOOR P.O.,
MEVELLOOR KARA, VELLOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT., PIN - 686609
BY ADVS.
SHRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN
SHRI.ASHISH P.A.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
SARATH GOPALAKRISHNAN,
S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AICKARAMALAYIL HOUSE,
CHIRAYIRAMBU P.O., NEDUPRAYAR KARA, NEDUMPURAM VILLAGE,
THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA ., PIN - 689549
BY ADV SMT.SIKHA G.NAIR
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(FC).No.89 of 2026
2
2026:KER:15093
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The petitioners seek that they be allowed to renew the
visa of 1st petitioner's daughter by name Anaga Nair to the
United Kingdom, who is presently shown as a dependent of the
1st petitioner in her visa.
2. Sri.George Sebastian - learned Counsel for the
petitioners, conceded that O.P.No.1780/2023 is pending before
the learned Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, wherein,
the respondent has sought permanent custody of the child. He
explained that, however, his clients face an urgency because,
the "dependent visa" of the child is to expire soon - within a
period of a week or so now; and hence that they moved the
learned Family Court seeking that they be allowed to renew it,
for which, the 1st petitioner requires a certification that she
holds "sole legal responsibility" over the child. He pointed out
that, however, the learned Family Court has dismissed the
application, through Ext.P7, solely for the reason that the
permanent custody of the child has not been yet adjudicated
2026:KER:15093
or decided upon. He reiterated that his clients' intent is only to
renew the "dependent visa" of the child, and not to take her to
U.K without permission of the learned Court; and prayed that
Ext.P7 be hence set aside.
3. In response, Smt.Sikha G. Nair - appearing for the
respondent, submitted that her client will not agree to the child
being taken abroad, or to the grant of any exclusive rights
over her in favour of the petitioners. She explained that her
client fears that, if any certification in favour of the 1 st
petitioner, as sought for by her, is granted, he would lose all
rights and custody over his child in future.
4. Before we move on, we must record that the
parties were before us, along with the child, on 17.02.2026.
The turn of events on that day, and our observations are
available in the order we indited, which is extracted below:
"The respondent as also the maternal grandparents of
the child (parents of the petitioner) were present
before us today.
2. We interacted with the child, who exhibited unusual
alienation to the father and began to cry inconsolably
when we asked her to talk to him. This is rather
surprising because the child is stated to have been
talking to the father earlier within the court premises;
but during interaction, what we saw is a totally
different child.
2026:KER:15093
3. The child is certainly going through trauma and she
told us that she knows that her father had assaulted
her mother.
4. We do not know how she came to be aware of such
information; but as matters now stand, she is refusing
even talk to her father much less go with him, hence
pleading with us while sobbing that she be allowed to
go back with her grandparents.
List this matter, therefore, for further consideration on
19.2.2026."
5. As matters now stand, the child obdurately refuses
to go to the father and has made her intent clear that she
wants to be with her mother, or her maternal grandparents.
6. No doubt, the Original Petition is pending before
the learned Family Court; and it is likely that it might take
some more time before it decides which parent should be
given custody of the child.
7. As said above, Sri.George Sebastian submits that
the 1st petitioner is residing in U.K on a valid visa; and that the
daughter has a "dependent visa" endorsed on it.
8. It is ineluctable that, because of the pendency of
the Original Petition before the learned Family Court, the child
is likely not to obtain the benefit of a "dependent visa" very
soon; and this may cause her great prejudice, because if,
eventually, the learned Court is to find in favour of the mother,
2026:KER:15093
it would be extremely cumbersome, if not impossible, for her
to then arrange her travel abroad.
9. We are, therefore, of the firm view that the
situation ought be balanced between the parties, so that
whoever wins the custody of the child eventually, will be able
to enjoy the benefits of the decree without any impediment.
10. In such perspective, we clarify that,
notwithstanding the pendency of O.P.No.1780/2023 before the
learned Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, the petitioners
will be at full liberty to approach the competent Authority of
the United Kingdom for the purpose of renewal of the
"dependent visa" of the child; and for such limited purpose, we
declare - clarifying that it does not give the 1 st petitioner any
other right, including to take the child abroad without
obtaining specific orders from the Court - that she will deemed
to hold sole legal responsibility over the latter.
11. After we dictated this part of the judgment, both
sides requested that this Court direct the learned Family Court
to dispose of the Original Petition not later than 5 or 6 months,
since it has been pending for nearly three years now.
2026:KER:15093
12. We accede to this request; and therefore, direct
the learned Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, to
endeavor to dispose of O.P.No.1780/2023, after affording
necessary opportunities to both sides, within a period of six
months.
This Original Petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B. SNEHALATHA,
JUDGE
Mms
2026:KER:15093
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) NO. 89 OF 2026
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION OP
1780/2023 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
14.10.2025 IN OP 1780/2023 OF THE
FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN IA
4/2024 IN OP 1780/2023 OF THE FAMILY
COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
19.12.2025 IN IA 4/2024 IN OP
1780/2023 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
12.01.2026 IN IA 2/2026 IN OP
1780/2023 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
16.01.2026 IN IA 2/2026 IN OP
1780/2023 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
19.01.2026 IN IA 2/2026 IN OP
1780/2023 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT THE E-
VISA STATUS OF ANAKHA NAIR, DAUGHTER
OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
Exhibit P5(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
12.01.2026 IN IA 2/2026 IN OP
1780/2023 ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT AND
PETITION OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF
THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE UK
GOVERNMENT IN RESPECT OF THE
APPLICATION FOR VISA RENEWAL OF THE
MINOR
