Supreme Court Directs Structured Interim Custody Schedule for Overseas Father: “Repeated Applications Are Unduly Burdensome, Welfare of Child Cannot Be Left to the Vagaries of Piecemeal Orders”

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court of India partially allowed the appeal and set aside the Kerala High Court’s decision that had denied the father a structured interim custody arrangement with his minor daughter. Instead, the Court laid down a definitive schedule for custody and visitation, stating that:

“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.”

The Court held that repeated applications for visitation were unduly burdensome and not in the best interest of the child, and thus framed a comprehensive interim arrangement until final adjudication of the custody matter pending before the Family Court.

Facts

• The appellant (father) and respondent (mother) were married in January 2016. Their daughter was born in October 2017.
• Following marital discord, the mother left the matrimonial home with the child in March 2023.
• The father, employed abroad on a rotational basis, filed for permanent custody in April 2023.
• Interim visitation was allowed by the Family Court, but it required the father to file fresh applications every time he visited India.
• Despite filing 20 IAs before the Family Court and 4 petitions before the High Court, the father secured only 37 days of physical access over one academic year.
• The High Court refused to grant a structured interim custody schedule and instead granted two isolated visitation dates in August and September 2024.

Issues

1. Whether the interim custody arrangement requiring repeated applications each time the father visits India is justified?
2. Whether a structured interim custody schedule should be framed pending final adjudication of the custody petition?

Petitioner’s Arguments

• The current “apply-each-time” arrangement imposes financial burden, logistical strain, and uncertainty for both the father and the child.
• The appellant has taken employment in the UAE to be closer and more available to the child.
• He has consistently paid ₹20,000 per month in maintenance and made significant efforts to maintain contact, including daily video calls.
• Reports from the Family Court counselor and judge confirm the child is comfortable with the appellant.
• The mother’s health concerns and seizures, along with issues in the child’s health while in her exclusive care, necessitate regular custody with the appellant.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The mother alleged mental and physical harassment by the appellant and has been the sole caregiver since March 2023.
• She contended that a fixed interim arrangement should only be decided after the final trial in the custody petition.
• The father’s overseas employment means he cannot provide day-to-day care, and frequent transfers would disrupt the child’s stable routine.

Analysis of the Law

The Court emphasized that custody disputes are inherently sensitive and must prioritize the best interest of the child. It acknowledged that:

“Meaningful contact with both parents is an integral component for the child’s welfare.”

It noted that repeated litigation for the same relief drains resources and causes conflict, reducing parenting time and impacting the child’s emotional well-being.

Precedent Analysis

While no specific prior judgments were cited, the Court’s approach aligns with the principle that custody arrangements must balance the child’s welfare with both parents’ rights, especially where the non-custodial parent demonstrates consistent involvement and care.

Court’s Reasoning

• The Family Court and High Court’s approach of requiring repetitive applications undermines predictability and parental involvement.
• The appellant’s consistent efforts, maintenance payments, and sacrifices for his daughter’s welfare justify structured access.
• The child’s comfort with the appellant, and the need for emotional and developmental stability, support an organized visitation regime.
• The Court also addressed the respondent’s concerns by embedding logistical safeguards into the new arrangement.

Conclusion

The appeal was allowed in part, and the Court substituted the ad hoc arrangement with a detailed interim schedule, including:

• Custody on alternate weekends during the appellant’s stay in India.
• Equal division of summer and festival vacations (subject to presence in India).
• Scheduled virtual interactions during overseas periods.
• No further IAs required for visitation.
• Summary resolution of disputes limited to logistics.

The Family Court was directed to expedite the final custody trial.

Implications

This judgment reinforces that interim arrangements in custody disputes must be child-centric and sensitive to practical realities. It discourages excessive procedural burdens and promotes consistent parental involvement. The decision will likely serve as a precedent for similar cases involving non-custodial parents residing abroad.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Holds That Respondent in Domestic Violence Proceedings Can Be Compelled to Provide Voice Sample for Forensic Verification — “Voice Sample Not Protected Under Article 20(3) in Quasi-Civil Proceedings; Magistrate Has Power Under Section 28(2) of PWDVA to Direct Voice Sample for Comparison”