Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 709
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.24419 of 2024)
EBY CHERIAN …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
JEREMA JOHN …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal assails the judgment dated
23 August 2024 of the High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam in O.P. (FC) No. 364 of 2024. By the
impugned order the High Court declined to set
aside an interim-custody arrangement made by
the Family Court, Ernakulam on 21 September
2023 in O.P. No. 1085 of 2023, and directed the
appellant–father to continue moving a fresh
application each time he visited India for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.05.15
19:01:08 IST
Reason:
overnight access to his minor daughter.
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)No.24419/2024 Page 1 of 13
3. The essential background may be stated briefly.
The parties were married on 10 January 2016.
The appellant is a graduate engineer who has
spent most of his career on rotational overseas
assignments, initially in Angola and, since
27 August 2024, in the United Arab Emirates,
returning to India during scheduled breaks. The
respondent-mother, a homemaker, resides with
the child at Ernakulam.
4. Their daughter, Manna Ann Eby, was born on
17 October 2017. Following marital discord, the
respondent left the matrimonial home with the
child on 4 March 2023, and since then the child
has remained exclusively in her care at
Ernakulam. On 29 April 2023 the appellant
instituted O.P. No. 1085 of 2023 before the
Family Court, Ernakulam, seeking permanent
custody of the child. Pending that petition he
filed applications for interim visitation.
5. The Family Court, by a common order dated 21
September 2023 on I.A. Nos. 2 & 4 of 2023,
recorded that the child was comfortable in the
company of the appellant, permitted daily video
interaction from 8 p.m. to 8.30 p.m., granted one
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)No.24419/2024 Page 2 of 13
weekend of overnight custody, and observed that
“as and when the petitioner is available here, he
may move necessary application for getting
overnight custody.”
6. Thereafter the appellant, who is employed
overseas on a rotation basis, was required to file
a separate interlocutory application (hereinafter
IA) on every visit to India. Between September
2023 and May 2024, he filed numerous interim
applications before the Family Court and four
original petitions before the High Court,
cumulatively obtaining only 37 days of physical
access during one academic year.
7. Contending that the “apply-each-time”
arrangement of the Family Court caused
uncertainty, financial strain, and loss of leave,
the appellant approached the High Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution by O.P. (FC) No.
364 of 2024, praying for a single, definitive
interim schedule not exceeding fifty per cent of
the child’s vacations and all weekends when he
is in India, together with continued daily video
calls.
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)No.24419/2024 Page 3 of 13
8. The respondent opposed the petition, submitting
that any standing arrangement should await the
trial in O.P. No. 1085 of 2023. She maintained
that the Family Court had already afforded
liberty to seek access as and when required.
9. The High Court dismissed the petition but, by
way of ad hoc relief, directed interim custody
from 10 a.m. on 24 August 2024 to 5 p.m. on 26
August 2024 and again from 10 a.m. on 14
September 2024 to 5 p.m. on 17 September
2024, with exchange at the respondent’s
residence and freedom for the mother to interact
telephonically during the child’s stay with the
father.
10. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the
appellant filed the present appeal before us
praying for a definitive interim arrangement for
his visitation schedule with the child.
11. During the pendency of these proceedings, this
Court referred the matter to the Supreme Court
Mediation Centre to explore a mutually
acceptable interim arrangement. However,
despite multiple comprehensive sessions, no
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)No.24419/2024 Page 4 of 13
settlement could be reached and the mediation
was closed without agreement.
12. In this backdrop, the limited grievance before us
is whether, pending adjudication of O.P. No.
1085 of 2023, the High Court and the Family
Court were justified in compelling the appellant
to seek overnight custody through successive IAs
on every visit to India, instead of framing a
structured interim-access schedule that duly
balances the welfare of the minor child with the
rights and obligations of both parents.
13. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Ms.
Shashi Kiran, has advanced the following
contentions:
(i) It is submitted that the requirement to file a
fresh IA on every visit is impracticable, as
custody suits in Kerala often last three to
four years; the arrangement breeds
uncertainty for the child and imposes
recurring expense on the appellant.
(ii) The appellant contends that he resigned his
Angola assignment on 24 April 2024 and,
having accepted employment in the United
Arab Emirates on 6 August 2024, now
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)No.24419/2024 Page 5 of 13
requires a settled interim timetable to plan
leave and international travel.
(iii) It is submitted that between September 2023
and May 2024, the appellant filed twenty IAs
before the Family Court and four original
petitions before the High Court, yet secured
only thirty-seven days of physical access,
each application being hotly contested and
exhausting his limited leave.
(iv) The appellant relies on the Family-Court
counsellor’s report and the interaction with
judge of the Family Court, both noting that
the child is comfortable with him, and
therefore urges regular weekend contact and
an equal share of school vacations as
conducive to her emotional development.
(v) It is submitted that the appellant has
remitted maintenance of ₹ 20,000 per month
since September 2023 yet receives no
information about the child’s schooling or
health, impairing meaningful parental
involvement.
(vi) Finally, the appellant contends that the
respondent’s recurrent seizures and certain
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)No.24419/2024 Page 6 of 13
health concerns observed in the child while
solely in her care reinforce the necessity of
predictable periods of custody with him
pending final adjudication.
14. The Counsel for the respondent has rendered the
following submissions:
(i) It is asserted that from the very outset the
marital relationship was strained and that
the respondent was subjected to mental and
physical harassment by the appellant and
his family, which ultimately compelled her to
leave the matrimonial home with the child on
4 March 2023. Since that date she has been
the sole caregiver, meeting all physical,
emotional, educational and medical needs of
the daughter, and maintains that the child’s
stable routine should not be disrupted by
extended or frequent transfers of custody.
(ii) The respondent emphasises that the
appellant works abroad for prolonged
periods and, notwithstanding his recent
change of employment, remains unable to
provide day-to-day care and she contends
that the child’s welfare is therefore best
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)No.24419/2024 Page 7 of 13
served by continuing in her exclusive
custody.
(iii) The respondent argues that the custody
petition, O.P. No. 1085 of 2023, is pending
trial, and argues that any fixed long-term
arrangement should emerge only after
evidence is recorded and the matter finally
decided.
15. Having heard the counsels for both the parties
and on perusing the record, we are persuaded
that the arrangement devised by the Family
Court, requiring the appellant to file a fresh IA on
every visit to India, places an undue procedural
burden on both the father and, by necessary
implication, the minor child. Custody litigation at
Family Court generally proceeds at a measured
pace and compelling repetitive applications for
what is, in essence, the same relief reduces the
child’s time, exhausts the father’s limited leave,
and invites avoidable conflict at every turn.
16. The Family-Court counsellor and the Judge’s
own interaction recorded that the child is at ease
with the appellant. No circumstance subsequent
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)No.24419/2024 Page 8 of 13
to that finding has been shown to diminish the
benefit the child derives from the father’s
company. Meaningful contact with both parents
is an integral component for the child’s welfare.
We believe that where a non-custodial parent
demonstrates consistency to be with the child,
pays maintenance, and arranges his professional
life around the child’s calendar, as the appellant
has done in the present case, procedure ought
not to stand in the way of a predictable schedule.
17. The High Court’s reluctance arises mainly from
the expectation that O.P. No. 1085 of 2023 would
go to trial on 18 September 2024. However, the
matter is still pending as on the date of this
judgement. In the interregnum, the child cannot
be left to the vagaries of piecemeal orders. A
structured timetable, sensitive to her routine and
the appellant’s overseas posting, is thus
imperative.
18. While the respondent’s apprehensions are noted,
they may be met through reasonable logistical
safeguards. We therefore consider it just and
equitable to replace the Family Court’s
arrangement with a standing interim
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)No.24419/2024 Page 9 of 13
arrangement that balances stability with the
appellant’s right to regular contact. We have
taken into account, the child’s tender age, her
schooling in Ernakulam, the appellant’s
rotational employment abroad, and the need to
minimise travel and hand-overs.
19. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed
in part.
20. The impugned order dated 23 August 2024 is set
aside to the extent indicated below, and in
substitution thereof the following directions shall
govern interim access until final disposal of O.P.
No. 1085 of 2023 or until further orders of the
Family Court:
(i) Whenever the appellant is in India for at least
7 consecutive days, he shall be entitled to
custody of the child from 10 a.m. on the first
Saturday of that stay until 5 p.m. on the
following Sunday, and, if his stay exceeds a
further week, for the alternate weekend on
the same timings. Exchange shall take place
at a neutral public spot in Ernakulam to be
agreed between the parties or, failing
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)No.24419/2024 Page 10 of 13
agreement, at the main gate of the Family
Court.
(ii) Summer vacations shall be divided into two
contiguous segments of equal days each: the
first with the respondent; the second with
the appellant, provided he is present in
India. If the appellant is abroad during the
second segment, those days shall lapse
without carry-over.
(iii) Each festival vacation shall be divided into
two contiguous blocks of equal days for the
custody. Before 30 days of the holiday dates,
the parties shall consult, by e-mail or
messaging, and endeavour to agree which
parent will take the first block and which will
take the second block, keeping the child’s
comfort and the appellant’s travel plans in
view. If they reach agreement, that
arrangement shall prevail and if they do not
agree within seven days of initiating
consultation, either party may, by a short
application, seek the Family Court’s
determination of the sequence.
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)No.24419/2024 Page 11 of 13
(iv) The parent with whom the child is spending
a vacation block shall not take her outside
Kerala without the written consent of the
other parent, communicated by e-mail
together with the proposed itinerary at least
forty-eight hours in advance.
(v) While the appellant is abroad, the parties
shall facilitate video calls on at least 3
weekdays from 8 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. IST, and
an additional virtual session on Saturdays
from 11 a.m. to 12 noon IST for collaborative
activities.
(vi) No fresh IAs before the Family Court shall be
required for the subsequent visitation
periods for the appellant.
(vii) The appellant shall e-mail the Family-Court
registry and the respondent at least four
weeks before his intended arrival in India,
specifying the weekends and, if applicable,
the vacation block for which he seeks
custody. Absence of objection within seven
days shall be deemed consent. Any
scheduling dispute shall be listed before the
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)No.24419/2024 Page 12 of 13
Family Court for summary resolution within
ten days, confined strictly to logistics.
(viii)The Family Court may, upon application,
vary the logistics (place and timing of
exchange) but not the quantum of access,
only if materially changed circumstances
such as the child’s schooling hours,
significant travel distances, or the
appellant’s posting, so require.
21. The Family Court, Ernakulam is requested to
adjudicate O.P. No. 1085 of 2023 as
expeditiously as possible.
22. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of in
terms of the above directions.
……………………………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
……………………………………J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI
MAY 15, 2025
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)No.24419/2024 Page 13 of 13
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.24419 of 2024)
EBY CHERIAN …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
JEREMA JOHN …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal assails the judgment dated
23 August 2024 of the High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam in O.P. (FC) No. 364 of 2024. By the
impugned order the High Court declined to set
aside an interim-custody arrangement made by
the Family Court, Ernakulam on 21 September
2023 in O.P. No. 1085 of 2023, and directed the
appellant–father to continue moving a fresh
application each time he visited India for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.05.15
19:01:08 IST
Reason:
overnight access to his minor daughter.
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)No.24419/2024 Page 1 of 13
3. The essential background may be stated briefly.
The parties were married on 10 January 2016.
The appellant is a graduate engineer who has
spent most of his career on rotational overseas
assignments, initially in Angola and, since
27 August 2024, in the United Arab Emirates,
returning to India during scheduled breaks. The
respondent-mother, a homemaker, resides with
the child at Ernakulam.
4. Their daughter, Manna Ann Eby, was born on
17 October 2017. Following marital discord, the
respondent left the matrimonial home with the
child on 4 March 2023, and since then the child
has remained exclusively in her care at
Ernakulam. On 29 April 2023 the appellant
instituted O.P. No. 1085 of 2023 before the
Family Court, Ernakulam, seeking permanent
custody of the child. Pending that petition he
filed applications for interim visitation.
5. The Family Court, by a common order dated 21
September 2023 on I.A. Nos. 2 & 4 of 2023,
recorded that the child was comfortable in the
company of the appellant, permitted daily video
interaction from 8 p.m. to 8.30 p.m., granted one
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)No.24419/2024 Page 2 of 13
weekend of overnight custody, and observed that
“as and when the petitioner is available here, he
may move necessary application for getting
overnight custody.”
6. Thereafter the appellant, who is employed
overseas on a rotation basis, was required to file
a separate interlocutory application (hereinafter
IA) on every visit to India. Between September
2023 and May 2024, he filed numerous interim
applications before the Family Court and four
original petitions before the High Court,
cumulatively obtaining only 37 days of physical
access during one academic year.
7. Contending that the “apply-each-time”
arrangement of the Family Court caused
uncertainty, financial strain, and loss of leave,
the appellant approached the High Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution by O.P. (FC) No.
364 of 2024, praying for a single, definitive
interim schedule not exceeding fifty per cent of
the child’s vacations and all weekends when he
is in India, together with continued daily video
calls.
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)No.24419/2024 Page 3 of 13
8. The respondent opposed the petition, submitting
that any standing arrangement should await the
trial in O.P. No. 1085 of 2023. She maintained
that the Family Court had already afforded
liberty to seek access as and when required.
9. The High Court dismissed the petition but, by
way of ad hoc relief, directed interim custody
from 10 a.m. on 24 August 2024 to 5 p.m. on 26
August 2024 and again from 10 a.m. on 14
September 2024 to 5 p.m. on 17 September
2024, with exchange at the respondent’s
residence and freedom for the mother to interact
telephonically during the child’s stay with the
father.
10. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the
appellant filed the present appeal before us
praying for a definitive interim arrangement for
his visitation schedule with the child.
11. During the pendency of these proceedings, this
Court referred the matter to the Supreme Court
Mediation Centre to explore a mutually
acceptable interim arrangement. However,
despite multiple comprehensive sessions, no
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)No.24419/2024 Page 4 of 13
settlement could be reached and the mediation
was closed without agreement.
12. In this backdrop, the limited grievance before us
is whether, pending adjudication of O.P. No.
1085 of 2023, the High Court and the Family
Court were justified in compelling the appellant
to seek overnight custody through successive IAs
on every visit to India, instead of framing a
structured interim-access schedule that duly
balances the welfare of the minor child with the
rights and obligations of both parents.
13. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Ms.
Shashi Kiran, has advanced the following
contentions:
(i) It is submitted that the requirement to file a
fresh IA on every visit is impracticable, as
custody suits in Kerala often last three to
four years; the arrangement breeds
uncertainty for the child and imposes
recurring expense on the appellant.
(ii) The appellant contends that he resigned his
Angola assignment on 24 April 2024 and,
having accepted employment in the United
Arab Emirates on 6 August 2024, now
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)No.24419/2024 Page 5 of 13
requires a settled interim timetable to plan
leave and international travel.
(iii) It is submitted that between September 2023
and May 2024, the appellant filed twenty IAs
before the Family Court and four original
petitions before the High Court, yet secured
only thirty-seven days of physical access,
each application being hotly contested and
exhausting his limited leave.
(iv) The appellant relies on the Family-Court
counsellor’s report and the interaction with
judge of the Family Court, both noting that
the child is comfortable with him, and
therefore urges regular weekend contact and
an equal share of school vacations as
conducive to her emotional development.
(v) It is submitted that the appellant has
remitted maintenance of ₹ 20,000 per month
since September 2023 yet receives no
information about the child’s schooling or
health, impairing meaningful parental
involvement.
(vi) Finally, the appellant contends that the
respondent’s recurrent seizures and certain
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)No.24419/2024 Page 6 of 13
health concerns observed in the child while
solely in her care reinforce the necessity of
predictable periods of custody with him
pending final adjudication.
14. The Counsel for the respondent has rendered the
following submissions:
(i) It is asserted that from the very outset the
marital relationship was strained and that
the respondent was subjected to mental and
physical harassment by the appellant and
his family, which ultimately compelled her to
leave the matrimonial home with the child on
4 March 2023. Since that date she has been
the sole caregiver, meeting all physical,
emotional, educational and medical needs of
the daughter, and maintains that the child’s
stable routine should not be disrupted by
extended or frequent transfers of custody.
(ii) The respondent emphasises that the
appellant works abroad for prolonged
periods and, notwithstanding his recent
change of employment, remains unable to
provide day-to-day care and she contends
that the child’s welfare is therefore best
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)No.24419/2024 Page 7 of 13
served by continuing in her exclusive
custody.
(iii) The respondent argues that the custody
petition, O.P. No. 1085 of 2023, is pending
trial, and argues that any fixed long-term
arrangement should emerge only after
evidence is recorded and the matter finally
decided.
15. Having heard the counsels for both the parties
and on perusing the record, we are persuaded
that the arrangement devised by the Family
Court, requiring the appellant to file a fresh IA on
every visit to India, places an undue procedural
burden on both the father and, by necessary
implication, the minor child. Custody litigation at
Family Court generally proceeds at a measured
pace and compelling repetitive applications for
what is, in essence, the same relief reduces the
child’s time, exhausts the father’s limited leave,
and invites avoidable conflict at every turn.
16. The Family-Court counsellor and the Judge’s
own interaction recorded that the child is at ease
with the appellant. No circumstance subsequent
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)No.24419/2024 Page 8 of 13
to that finding has been shown to diminish the
benefit the child derives from the father’s
company. Meaningful contact with both parents
is an integral component for the child’s welfare.
We believe that where a non-custodial parent
demonstrates consistency to be with the child,
pays maintenance, and arranges his professional
life around the child’s calendar, as the appellant
has done in the present case, procedure ought
not to stand in the way of a predictable schedule.
17. The High Court’s reluctance arises mainly from
the expectation that O.P. No. 1085 of 2023 would
go to trial on 18 September 2024. However, the
matter is still pending as on the date of this
judgement. In the interregnum, the child cannot
be left to the vagaries of piecemeal orders. A
structured timetable, sensitive to her routine and
the appellant’s overseas posting, is thus
imperative.
18. While the respondent’s apprehensions are noted,
they may be met through reasonable logistical
safeguards. We therefore consider it just and
equitable to replace the Family Court’s
arrangement with a standing interim
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)No.24419/2024 Page 9 of 13
arrangement that balances stability with the
appellant’s right to regular contact. We have
taken into account, the child’s tender age, her
schooling in Ernakulam, the appellant’s
rotational employment abroad, and the need to
minimise travel and hand-overs.
19. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed
in part.
20. The impugned order dated 23 August 2024 is set
aside to the extent indicated below, and in
substitution thereof the following directions shall
govern interim access until final disposal of O.P.
No. 1085 of 2023 or until further orders of the
Family Court:
(i) Whenever the appellant is in India for at least
7 consecutive days, he shall be entitled to
custody of the child from 10 a.m. on the first
Saturday of that stay until 5 p.m. on the
following Sunday, and, if his stay exceeds a
further week, for the alternate weekend on
the same timings. Exchange shall take place
at a neutral public spot in Ernakulam to be
agreed between the parties or, failing
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)No.24419/2024 Page 10 of 13
agreement, at the main gate of the Family
Court.
(ii) Summer vacations shall be divided into two
contiguous segments of equal days each: the
first with the respondent; the second with
the appellant, provided he is present in
India. If the appellant is abroad during the
second segment, those days shall lapse
without carry-over.
(iii) Each festival vacation shall be divided into
two contiguous blocks of equal days for the
custody. Before 30 days of the holiday dates,
the parties shall consult, by e-mail or
messaging, and endeavour to agree which
parent will take the first block and which will
take the second block, keeping the child’s
comfort and the appellant’s travel plans in
view. If they reach agreement, that
arrangement shall prevail and if they do not
agree within seven days of initiating
consultation, either party may, by a short
application, seek the Family Court’s
determination of the sequence.
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)No.24419/2024 Page 11 of 13
(iv) The parent with whom the child is spending
a vacation block shall not take her outside
Kerala without the written consent of the
other parent, communicated by e-mail
together with the proposed itinerary at least
forty-eight hours in advance.
(v) While the appellant is abroad, the parties
shall facilitate video calls on at least 3
weekdays from 8 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. IST, and
an additional virtual session on Saturdays
from 11 a.m. to 12 noon IST for collaborative
activities.
(vi) No fresh IAs before the Family Court shall be
required for the subsequent visitation
periods for the appellant.
(vii) The appellant shall e-mail the Family-Court
registry and the respondent at least four
weeks before his intended arrival in India,
specifying the weekends and, if applicable,
the vacation block for which he seeks
custody. Absence of objection within seven
days shall be deemed consent. Any
scheduling dispute shall be listed before the
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)No.24419/2024 Page 12 of 13
Family Court for summary resolution within
ten days, confined strictly to logistics.
(viii)The Family Court may, upon application,
vary the logistics (place and timing of
exchange) but not the quantum of access,
only if materially changed circumstances
such as the child’s schooling hours,
significant travel distances, or the
appellant’s posting, so require.
21. The Family Court, Ernakulam is requested to
adjudicate O.P. No. 1085 of 2023 as
expeditiously as possible.
22. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of in
terms of the above directions.
……………………………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
……………………………………J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI
MAY 15, 2025
Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)No.24419/2024 Page 13 of 13