The Kerala High Court recently reviewed a mother’s plea contesting a family court’s decision to grant sole custody to the father. The court ruled that a mother should not be considered harmful to the child’s well-being solely based on society’s perception of her moral character.
Justices A Muhamed Mustaque and Sophy Thomas emphasized that societal morality should not be the determining factor in assessing a parent-child relationship. They stated that when resolving custody disputes, the primary consideration should be the best interests of the child. A person’s suitability in a relationship context does not necessarily reflect their ability to care for their offspring. The High Court remarked that while a mother might be morally criticized by society, she can still be good for the child’s welfare.
The court’s observation came in response to the mother’s petition, in which she challenged the family court’s decision to grant sole custody to the father. The family court based its ruling on the grounds that the mother had eloped with another individual and that her “wayward life” would negatively impact the children’s welfare.
The petitioner, however, explained to the court that her troubled relationship with her spouse compelled her to leave their marital home. The petitioner’s father supported her statement, revealing that she had gone with an acquaintance of her brother to create an appearance of elopement and seek an annulment of the marriage. Conversely, the spouse insisted that she had eloped with someone else.
The Supreme Court stated that it did not find either version of events convincing at the time. However, the language used by the family court was deemed inappropriate. Furthermore, the High Court concluded that the family court made an error in determining that the petitioner’s actions were detrimental to the child’s welfare simply because she had left the house and was seen with another person.
The High Court emphasized that there are various valid reasons for leaving a marital residence, and the presence of another individual does not necessarily imply wrongdoing or pleasure-seeking. The court expressed concern that moral judgments reflected in such custody orders could undermine the purpose of conducting investigations in child custody matters.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the family court’s custody order and granted shared custody to both parents. Considering the circumstances, the court deemed alternating custody to be in the best interests of the parents. The mother was granted custody every other Friday at 5 p.m. until the following Friday, with the minor being returned and handed over at the Alappuzha family court, as per the court’s ruling.
