A Child Is Not a Trophy in Parental Battles: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Custody Order, Issues Guideline to End Courtroom Trauma for Children

“He Told Us He Hates Courts, He Hates Us — Because We Keep Summoning Him”: Kerala High Court Restores Shared Custody, Bans Routine Court Appearances for Children. Delivering a profoundly empathetic judgment that centers the voice and trauma of a child caught in parental litigation, the Kerala High Court set aside a Family Court order granting permanent custody to the father, and restored the original shared custody arrangement. The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha went further, issuing landmark guidelines to reduce the exposure of children to courts, holding that repeated production of children in custody disputes was “dehumanizing, humiliating, and traumatizing.”

The Bench opened its judgment with a deeply evocative reflection:

“Parental conflicts are not mere legal matters; they are reflections of interpersonal problems... But in the maelstrom of emotion, children are sometimes forgotten, and this can leave scars on their psyche permanently.”

Case Background: A Child Caught Between Two Parents and Multiple Courts

The litigation stemmed from a consent order in a 2018 custody dispute, where both parents agreed to a shared custody arrangement. This was later modified by the Family Court, giving permanent custody to the father based on allegations that the mother violated handover conditions.

However, the mother challenged this, asserting that the child was unwilling to go with the father, and that his mental health was severely affected by the custody transitions and repeated court appearances.

The Child's Words Shook the Court — “I Hate You for Summoning Me”

The High Court met with the child in Chambers. What followed left the Bench visibly shaken:

“The child clung to his mother... he recounted incidents that had caused him shock and angst. He cried inconsolably and told us he does not trust us — for summoning him again, after he had been promised never to be brought back to court.”

The Court was told the child suffered from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and was undergoing professional support. His emotional outburst included a refusal to even shake hands with his father, and he stated:

“I feel dehumanized and stigmatized… I will never enter a court again.”

Court’s Finding: “Litigation Turned the Child Into a Chattel of Conflict”

Rejecting the Family Court’s findings, the High Court held:

“The child was not unwilling to go to the father because of tutelage by the mother — but because of real trauma. The Family Court erred in ignoring the child's extreme reluctance and emotional breakdown.”

The Bench noted that the Family Court, despite observing that the child refused to even enter the Judge's chambers, still granted full custody to the father. This, the High Court ruled, was an error of both law and empathy:

“As long as the child is obdurately unwilling to go with the father, his claim for permanent custody remains untenable.”

Guidelines Issued: No More Routine Summoning of Children to Court

In a powerful epilogue to its ruling, the Court laid down binding directives for all Family Courts:

1. Children must not be summoned to Court unless unavoidable, and only with recorded reasons.

2. Interaction must happen in private, with dignity, and without delay.

3. Court premises must not be used as exchange points for children unless absolutely necessary.

4. Neutral locations should be preferred to reduce trauma.

“Children should never be paraded as articles in courtrooms. They must be treated as humans — with dignity, respect, and care.”

The judgment has been ordered to be circulated to all Family Courts in Kerala for mandatory compliance.

The Kerala High Court’s judgment is not only a correction of a custodial misstep, but also a systemic intervention in the way courts interface with children. By recognizing that legal processes can themselves become sources of trauma, the Court has foregrounded the psychological integrity of the child in custody jurisprudence.

“The tears of a child, his cry for deliverance, and his rebuke to the legal system compel us to look beyond procedure — and into the soul of justice.”

Date of Decision: April 2, 2025