High CourtsDivision Bench(2026) 07 KL CK 1567

Sruthi V vs State Of Kerala & Ors.

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 30 July 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Soumen Sen, C.J · Syam Kumar V.M., J
CASE NUMBER
WP(CRL.) NO. 1104 OF 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

21 paragraphs · 1,025 words

SOUMEN SEN, C.J.

Heard Mr. Harikrishnan P.B., learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Vidya Kuriakose, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Ms. Sreelatha Parameshwaran, learned Special Government Pleader.

2.

Respondent No. 4, along with the children, is physically present before the Court. The petitioner is present through video conferencing. We have interacted with the petitioner, respondent No. 4 and the children separately as well as jointly. The children are presently residing with their father at Phoenix Apartments, Thrikkakkara, and are currently studying at Asoka World School, Elamkulam. Prior to this, the children were in the custody of their mother at Thalassery, Kannur, where they were admitted to Tagore School, Thalassery. Respondent No. 4 has admitted that he took the children from Tagore School on the eve of the summer vacation and brought them to his present residence at Phoenix Apartments, Thrikkakkara. According to Respondent No. 4, he did so as the petitioner was not permitting him to interact with the children.

3.

The petitioner, during her interaction with the Court, stated that she is presently residing with her parents and that, owing to matrimonial discord, she has been living separately from Respondent No. 4 for some time.

4.

At present, our primary concern is the welfare of the children. We have interacted with them, and they have candidly expressed their desire that both their parents should be together with them. At the same time, they have indicated that they are not averse to returning to their mother and residing with her. Having regard to the report filed by the State respondents and the nature of the respondent No.4’s employment, we are of the view that it may not be desirable, at present, for the children to remain in the custody of the father unless the parties are willing to establish a permanent place of residence for the children. The petitioner has expressed her unwillingness to reside in the matrimonial home and has levelled certain allegations against respondent No. 4. The veracity of those allegations has been disputed by respondent No. 4. At this stage, we are not inclined to examine or adjudicate upon the correctness of the said allegations. However, we make it clear to the parents that it is their joint responsibility to bring up the children and to provide a better and more conducive atmosphere so that the children can live happily with their parents.

5.

For the time being, the children shall be restored to the custody of the mother until a final decision is taken by the parents after their session with by the Counsellor attached to the Family Court, Thalassery. The Counsellor shall make every endeavour to facilitate the reunion of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 and shall also ensure that the welfare and best interests of the children are duly taken care of by both the parents.

6.

In view of the aforesaid, we request the Principal, Tagore School, Thalassery, to re-admit the children to the said school. All communications concerning respondent No. 4 shall be addressed to his present residential address as well as the address mentioned in the cause title. Respondent No. 4 shall remain present on each and every date of counselling as may be fixed by the Counsellor for the purpose of resolving the issues between the parties. We direct the parties to have a joint vacation during the Onam festival, subject to any other arrangements that may be mutually agreed upon by the parties during the counselling sessions.

7.

The Counsellor may seek the assistance of a child psychologist during the course of the interaction, which may be conducted in the presence of the children, if the Counsellor deems it necessary and appropriate. Considering the physical condition of the younger child, the transfer of custody shall be deferred until 6th August, 2026. In the event any surgery is advised for the younger child, the parties shall take a conscious decision regarding the place where such surgery should be performed. Needless to say, a suitable facility with the best available medical infrastructure and care shall be selected for the purpose. During the period of surgery and recovery, the custody of the child shall remain with the mother. The mother may continue to retain custody of the children, subject to any further arrangements that may be suggested by the Counsellor. It shall be open to the petitioner to visit and stay with respondent No. 4 at Phoenix Apartments in the meantime. It is made clear that, during such visit, the parties shall remain composed and conduct themselves responsibly, ensuring that the children do not suffer on account of the differences between them.

8.

It is needless to mention that the father shall have access to the children irrespective of the outcome of the counselling. In the event the parties fail to arrive at a consensus regarding the custody of the children, appropriate arrangements shall be arrived at and agreed to in the counselling to ensure access of respondent No. 4 to the children. The guidelines issued by this Court in Hayarunisa Abdul Hakkim v. The Director General of Police and Others1 shall also be taken into consideration in deciding the custody of the children.

The W.P.(Crl) is accordingly disposed of.

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 1104 OF 2026

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15.06.2026 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE TRANSLATED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT

EXHIBIT-P2. A TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER DATED 18.01.2024 IN M.C. NO.05/2024 ISSUED BY THE SDM, THALASSERY AGAINST THE 4TH RESPONDENT

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit R4(b) A true copy of the admission record of Master Viaan Varun

Exhibit R4(a) A true copy of the admission record of Master Amarah Varun

Exhibit R4(c) A true copy of the screenshots of the Whats App communications exchanged between the petitioner and this respondent

Exhibit R4(d) A true copy of the judgment in Crl.M.C.2384 of 2024 dated 25.06.2024 of this Hon’ble Court

Exhibit R4(e) A true copy of the medical certificate dated 27.07.2026 issued by Dr. Jiss Joseph Panakkal along with Request of X-ray

Footnotes

  1. 1.Judgment dated 1 June, 2026 in WP(Crl.) No.820 of 2026