“Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Successive FIRs Cannot Be Used to Thwart Bail: Supreme Court Invokes Article 32 to Protect Personal Liberty Supreme Court Enforces Contractual Bar Against Interest in Government Contracts Ex Parte Decree Not a Blank Cheque - Merely Because Defendant Absent, Plaintiff’s Case Not Presumed True: Madras High Court Mandatory Injunction Cannot Be Kept in Cold Storage: Supreme Court Enforces Strict Three-Year Limitation for Execution Senior Citizens Act Is for Maintenance, Not a Shortcut to Eviction: Calcutta High Court Restrains Tribunal’s Overreach Statement ‘Counsel Says’ Is Not a Binding Undertaking Without Client’s Specific Authorization: Allahabad High Court Declines to Initiate Contempt Rigours of Section 43-D(5) Melt Down When Liberty Is at Stake: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in UAPA Case After 2.5 Years’ Custody Vakalatnama Is Not a Mere Form – Attestation Is a Legal Safeguard: Andhra Pradesh High Court Cautions Advocates and Registry on Procedural Sanctity Right to Be Considered for Promotion Is Fundamental – Employer’s Unfairness Cannot Defeat It: : Gujarat High Court Panchayat Statement Implicating Others Is Not a Confession Proper: J&K High Court Rejects Extra-Judicial Confession in Murder Appeal Contempt Lies Only on ‘Wilful and Deliberate Disobedience’ – Fresh KASP Appointments Not Replacement of Daily Wage Workers: Kerala High Court 498A Cannot Become a Dragnet for Entire Family: Orissa High Court Shields Distant In-Laws but Sends Husband to Trial Forgery Of ACR Is No Part Of Official Duty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against IFS Officer Sole Eye-Witness Not Wholly Reliable, Conviction Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused in Alleged Witchcraft Double Murder Case Functional Disability, Not Mere Physical Percentage, Determines Compensation: Kerala High Court Remands Employees’ Compensation Case for Medical Board Assessment Conviction Cannot Rest On Fictitious Memorandums – When Investigation Is Tainted, Benefit Of Doubt Must Follow: MP High Court Legal Objection Cannot Be Sprung in Second Appeal: P&H High Court Draws Sharp Line Between ‘Legal Plea’ and ‘Legal Objection’ When Foundational Facts Are Seriously Disputed, Writ Court Ought Not To Undertake A Fact-Finding Exercise: Kerala High Court Compliance Affidavits Are Nothing But Admission of Disobedience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Puts Chief Secretaries and DGPs in Dock Over Arnesh Kumar Violations Husband’s Salary Slips Are Personal Information: Rajasthan High Court Refuses Disclosure Under RTI

Child Custody Disputes Can’t Wait Out School Reopenings: Kerala High Court Directs Urgent Hearing on Father’s Summer Access Plea

20 August 2025 9:37 AM

By: Deepak Kumar


“When Child’s Vacation Rights Are at Stake, Delay Defeats Justice”, In a prompt intervention to safeguard the parental rights of a non-custodial father, the Kerala High Court directed the Family Court, Chavara to urgently dispose of an interim custody plea pending since March. The petitioner-father had sought temporary custody of his minor son during the summer vacation of 2025, but the matter remained undecided, prompting him to invoke the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

“Delay in such matters may render the application infructuous,” observed the Division Bench of Justices Anil K. Narendran and Johnson John. The petition was eventually closed after it was brought to the Court’s attention that the Family Court had passed an order on the custody plea on May 13, 2025.

The custody battle pertains to Vihaan Vishnu, a 5½-year-old child born to Vishnu S. and Salabham Sunil. The father originally filed a guardianship petition (GOP No. 1693/2020) before the Family Court, Ernakulam, which was later transferred and renumbered as OP(G&W) No. 921/2021 in the Family Court, Chavara.

On March 16, 2025, Vishnu filed I.A. No. 22/2025 seeking interim custody of the child during summer holidays from May 9 to May 30. However, when the Family Court failed to act on the application, he approached the High Court.

Through I.A. No. 23/2025 filed in April, he reiterated his request, stressing the time-sensitive nature of his claim. His counsel submitted that the Family Court had listed the matter on May 12, just weeks before schools were to reopen in early June, risking complete denial of visitation.

The High Court, recognizing the urgency, observed on May 9: “If the matter is prolonged, the application will become infructuous since the schools will re-open after summer recess, by 2nd of June.”

The Court directed the Family Court to make every endeavour to dispose of the interim application on May 12, or at the earliest thereafter. It further recorded that the Family Court had, in fact, passed an order on May 13 on I.A. No. 22/2025, thus rendering the writ unnecessary.

“In such circumstances, we find that nothing survives in this original petition and the same is accordingly closed, leaving open the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides,” the Bench held.

Importantly, the Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the Family Court’s interim order, preserving the rights of both parties to seek further legal remedies if necessary.

This ruling underlines the High Court’s commitment to ensuring that procedural delays do not deprive a parent—especially a non-custodial one—of meaningful access during a child's vacation period. By responding swiftly and ensuring the Family Court acts before the school term resumed, the Court reaffirmed that “justice delayed in child custody is justice denied.”

“The petitioner has a right to be heard, and the child has a right to shared affection. Justice must work with the calendar when it concerns children,” the judgment implicitly signals.

Date of Decision: May 16, 2025

Latest Legal News