By: Shubh Tewari
Introduction
The Supreme Court has delivered a significant judgement on 17th March 2025 titled as Kiren Raju Penamacha vs Tejuswini Chowdhary (2025 INSC 358) arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) 7261 of 2024, which highlighted broad principles on the key issue of child custody and visitation rights following divorce.
The dispute revolved around the custody of the couple’s only male child, with both the husband and wife accusing each other of being unfit to have custody. Matters escalated when the appellant filed an execution petition alleging that the respondent had violated the terms of the custody decree, while the respondent, in turn, filed an interlocutory application seeking modification of the interim custody arrangement, citing negligent conduct by the appellant. This brought the issue before the Apex court as to whether the execution petition should proceed independently despite the pending modification application, or whether both should be heard together, keeping the child’s welfare as the paramount consideration.
Hence we now delve deeper into the case to understand the rationale behind it.
Factual Backdrop
The parties referred hereinabove are Hindus who got tied in a wedlock on 15.04.2012 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals and thus a male child was born to them on 11.08.2014. Due to disputes between them, the parties moved to the court to seek divorce by mutual consent and contest for the custody of their child, to which by decree and order dated 02.09.2021 the parties were granted divorce and the custody of child was handed over to the respondent mother whereas interim custody for weekends was handed over to the Appellant father. With passage of time, it was alleged by the appellant that the respondent by not preventing their son meet him has breached the terms of decree and therefore he filed an E.P. on 06.02.2023 which resulted an order in his favour and was given the right to video call his son every day for half an hour which was also subsequently not abided by the respondent. Further, the respondent also moved an I.A. before the Family Court on 03.10.2023 to seek modification in terms pertaining to interim custody provided to appellant. Thus for disposal of such applications, the family court allowed the E.P on 19.01.2024, aggrieved to which the respondent preferred an appealed before the High Court and received a favourable order which directed the Family court to afresh dispose both E.P and I.A strictly in accordance with law. Finally the major contention held by the appellant was that their son used to enjoy his father’s company and it was only the respondent’s tutoring that led to the generation of feeling of animosity in their son towards his father, contrary to which it was alleged by the respondent that it was the ignorant and harsh behaviour on part of appellant which led to clear disinclination of the child in contacting or visiting his father.
Issues and Legal Questions
The Apex Court while addressing the matter put forth, identified several key issues which are as follows:
- Whether the petition for modification of the decree regarding the custody of the child filed by the Respondent-mother and the execution petition filed by the Appellant-father should be heard together or whether the execution petition should proceed irrespective of the pendency of the modification petition?
- What approach should be adopted by the courts in deciding sensitive issues pertaining to determination of rights involving minors?
The issues find its relevance in the light of principles enshrined under Guardians and Wards Act 1890. It has been rightly identified by the Apex Court that the issue has to be dealt carefully as it is in direct consonance with the principles provided under section 17[1] of the Act which stresses upon factors like best interest, welfare and well being of the child as well as consideration of the preferences of the child if he/she has attained sufficient maturity. Therefore for the case in hand the principles will guide the court in deciding whether the execution petition should straightaway be disposed irrespective of pendency of modification petition or both be heard together, as any decision thereto will have a long lasting impact on the interests and persona of the child.
Ratio Decidendi and Key Observations of the Court
Supreme Court while adjudicating upon the matter called in question primarily laid its emphasis upon the principle of best interest of child as also opined by this court in earlier rulings. The Apex court thus in the light of facts and contention put forth and also aware of exercise of its parens patriae jurisdiction considered expressing no opinion on the merits of the case, rather held that there would be no interdiction with the impugned judgement of the High court but required for fresh consideration and expeditious disposal of the case by the family court, during whose pendency all the interim arrangements made earlier shall continue to exist till the family court takes a final call upon the said dispute.
The decree passed by the family court from which the issue originated considering partial custody to both the parents reflected a balanced reasoning which inculcated the importance of parents’ love and affection that is needed by a minor to affect his psychology positively. Also when the learned appellate courts were called to decide upon the issue, they found themselves on the same footing i.e. they stressed upon the need to safeguard the interests of the child irrespective of in whose favour the case is decided by court of original jurisdiction.
Therefore the spirit behind the decision could be understood in view of the following observations made by the Supreme Court herein as follows:
- It was observed that there were several instances which depicted clear disinclination of the child towards his father on account of his negligent behaviour.
- It was also noted that the child has not attained sufficient maturity to decide what best suits to his interests.
- The Court emphasised upon the conduct of respondent mother who has clearly made attempts to prevent/obstruct/stop the visitation rights granted to the Appellant-father, that too pursuant to a consent decree between the parties.
- The Court also stressed that even the interim arrangements made hereinbefore can have negative impact on tender and fragile state of mind of the child.
Critical Analysis
The Hon’ble Court has clearly sought to strike a balance between the welfare aimed and intentions expressed by the child as it was observed that the child was not sufficiently mature enough to decide what suits best to his interests. Therefore to arrive at consensus upon the issue, it relied upon the approaches adopted earlier in precedents like Nil Ratan Kundu vs Abhijit Kundu[2], which liberated court in giving human touch to such issues, whereas in Yashita Sahu vs State of Rajasthan[3] it stressed upon paramount consideration of welfare and wellbeing of child as well as the kind of impact which is likely to be made on the persona of the child on account of such arrangements which signifies that there was a clear focus upon the maintenance of psychological wellbeing of the child.
Meanwhile, on the other hand being aware of its exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction, by refraining from expressing any opinion upon the merits of the case, a clear gap was left behind because the issue which arose in the case was a reflection of the nation’s need in such aspect and if the learned court would have provided a standard mechanism or set of principles for determination of like modalities, it would have by far solved or guided a way for resolution of thousands or lacs of like pending issues.
Nevertheless, pertaining to the adjudication of custody and visitation rights the case will definitely be a guiding light for the Courts and the legal fraternity for examining the extent to which liberal interpretation of laws could be made for achieving desired ends of justice.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court therefore through above judgement has yet again highlighted the core principle in whose light the issues pertaining to child custody rights should be understood and ultimately be adjudicated. The case will also find its relevance in future disputes as it stressed upon the approach that should be adopted while handling such issues, which would alongside other judicial precedents will act like a guiding light to understand, analyse and create fresh perspectives in the changing social dynamics of the nation. Moreover on similar lines like the leading case law of Rajneesh vs Neha pronounced in year 2020 which mandated for filing a proforma for purpose of maintenance, the court can make provision for filing of detailed form requiring necessary information from the contending parties which would assist the court in deciding best for the interests of child.
Bibliography
Cases
Nil Ratan Kundu Vs Abhijit Kundu, 2008 (9) SCC 413
Nithya Anand Raghavan Vs State of (NCT Delhi), 2017 8 SCC 454
Yashita Sahu Vs State of Rajasthan, (2020) 3 SCC 67
Statutes and Statutory instruments
Section 17, Guardians and Wards, Act No. 8 of 1890
Section 26, Hindu Marriage, Act No. 25 of 1955
Section 13, Hindu Marriage, Act No. 25 of 1955
[1] Section 17, Guardians and Wards Act 1890
[2] 2008 (9) SCC 413
[3] 2020 (3) SCC 67
Lawcutor 