Lekha Komath vs. Harikrishnan Gopikarnakar

CASE BRIEF

Case Name: Lekha Komath Appellant/Respondent vs Harikrishnan Gopikarnakar Respondent/Petitioner.

Case No.- Mat. Appeal No. 294 of 2024

Court- Hon’ble High Court of Kerala

Legal Issue:

The central legal issue in this case involves the custody and guardianship of a minor child, specifically whether the Family Court’s decision to grant limited visitation and overnight custody to the respondent/father while denying permanent custody and guardianship to the petitioner/mother is justified under the law.

Observations of Trial Court/Family Court:

The Family Court has accordingly granted the following reliefs to the respondent/father.

1. The petitioner/father is permitted to make audio or video call to the minor child on every Tuesdays and Fridays for 15 minutes in between 7 P.M and 8 P.M. of Indian Standard Time.
2. If the petitioner is here on leave respondent shall hand over the custody of the minor child on all Saturday from 8 A.M. till 8 P.M. of Sunday.
3. If the petitioner/father is here during Onam and Christmas holidays, the custody of the minor child is to be given to the petitioner for four days.
4. If the petitioner is here during summer holidays, respondent/mother shall hand over the custody of the minor child one week in the month of April and one week in the month of May.
5. Respondent/mother shall inform the petitioner regarding the entire aspects about the studies and other important matters of the child.

Key Facts:

1. The appellant/respondent, Lekha Komath, challenged the Family Court’s order dated February 15, 2024, in O.P. No. 1502/2019, which denied the respondent/petitioner, Harikrishnan Gopikarnakar, permanent custody and guardianship of their minor daughter.
2. The Family Court granted visitation rights and limited custody to the respondent/father, allowing him custody during specified periods such as weekends, holidays, and when he was on leave from his employment in the Merchant Navy.
3. The appellant/mother contested the Family Court’s decision, arguing that granting visitation and overnight custody to the respondent/father while denying permanent custody and guardianship to her was not in the child’s best interest. She raised concerns about the child’s emotional well-being and cited instances of aggressive behaviour by the respondent/father.
4. Both parties presented their arguments before the court, emphasizing the importance of the child’s welfare and the need for both parents’ involvement in her life.
5. The court conducted a thorough examination of the case, including interactions with both parties and the minor child, to determine the most suitable custody arrangement.

Holding:

The court upheld the Family Court’s decision to grant visitation rights and limited custody to the respondent/father while denying permanent custody and guardianship. The court found that the Family Court’s order was in line with the principles governing child custody matters, prioritizing the child’s welfare and ensuring her continued relationship with both parents.

Rationale:

1. The court emphasized that the welfare of the child is paramount in custody matters, and technical objections should not impede decisions that serve the child’s best interests.
2. Precedents cited by the court underscored the importance of maintaining the child’s relationship with both parents and ensuring their continued involvement in her life.
3. The court acknowledged the concerns raised by the appellant/mother but concluded that the Family Court’s decision adequately addressed those concerns while upholding the child’s right to the love, care, and affection of both parents.
4. The court highlighted the harmful effects of parental conflicts on children and urged parents to prioritize their child’s well-being by presenting a united front and avoiding hostile behaviour towards each other.

Precedents used by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala:

• Yashita SahuState of Rajasthan [2020 KHC 6045]
• Vasudha SethiKiran V. Bhaskar [AIR 2022 SC 476]
• Rohith Thammana GowdaState of Karnataka [AIR 2022 SC 3511]

In Yashita Sahu, the Apex Court emphasized that the welfare of the child is the primary and paramount consideration in custody matters. Technical objections should not impede this welfare. The court must consider the best interests of the child, rather than the views of one parent alone. Custody battles often portray one parent as a villain, which can harm the child. Therefore, courts must carefully evaluate the statements of both parents. The Apex Court noted that a child of tender years needs the love, affection, company, and protection of both parents, which is a basic human right. Parental conflicts should not deprive the child of care from either parent. Frequent separation and reunion can traumatize the child, so courts must meticulously weigh all circumstances before determining custody arrangements. Even if custody is granted to one parent, the other should have sufficient visitation rights to maintain the child’s social, physical, and psychological contact with both parents. In Vasudha Sethi v. Kiran V. Bhaskar, the Apex Court held that when the court alters custody from one parent, it should generally grant visitation rights to the other parent, barring compelling reasons. This is because the child benefits from the company of both parents. Visitation rights are granted for the welfare of minors and to ensure they can maintain relationships with both parents, not merely to protect parental rights. The court emphasized that the child’s well-being and welfare must take precedence over the individual rights of the parents. In Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka, it was held that in the matter involving the question of custody of a child, it has to be borne in mind that the question ‘What is the wish/desire of the child’ is different and distinct from the question ‘What would be in the best interest of the child’. Certainly, the wish/desire of the child can be ascertained through interaction but then, the question as to ‘what would be in the best interest of the child’ is a matter to be decided by the court taking into account all the relevant circumstances. It was further held that while considering the claim for custody of a minor child, unless very serious, proven conduct should make one of them unworthy to claim for custody of the child concerned, the question can and shall be decided solely by looking into the question as to, ‘what would be the best interest of the child concerned.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the appellant/respondent’s appeal, affirming the Family Court’s order regarding visitation rights and custody arrangements. The decision reflects the court’s commitment to safeguarding the child’s welfare and promoting her continued relationship with both parents.