Child Custody Must Not Cross Police Doors | Kerala High Court Declares Police Stations Unfit For Handovers | Labels Such Orders More Traumatic Than Court Appearances
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha dismissed a matrimonial appeal challenging interim custody directions but issued a significant directive barring the use of police stations for child custody exchanges. The court held that such practices were detrimental to the mental and emotional well-being of children. While declining to interfere with the specific custody timeline under challenge, the bench directed that henceforth, custody arrangements—whether interim or permanent—must exclude police stations entirely, reinforcing a child-sensitive approach in family law proceedings.
The dispute arose from interim custody arrangements ordered by the Family Court, Thrissur, in relation to a minor child caught between her litigating parents. The appellant, the child’s mother, challenged the impugned order passed on 2nd May 2025, under IA Nos. 28/2025 and 30/2025 in GOP No. 16 of 2022. The Family Court had directed that the minor child be handed over to the father for a specified period, starting from 2nd May 2025 to 26th May 2025, with a further instruction to produce the child before the court on 27th May 2025.
The mother contested this arrangement primarily on grounds of concern for the child’s safety while under the father’s custody. A specific grievance was also raised regarding the location of the custody exchange. The Family Court had directed the handover to take place at a police station, which the appellant contended would be emotionally harmful to the child.
Both parties were represented by counsel during the hearing of the appeal on 20th May 2025. It was admitted by both sides during the proceedings that the child had already been with the father since 5th May 2025. Based on this factual position and the limited period left in the interim custody order, the High Court chose not to interfere with the specific directive.
The relevant statutory backdrop includes provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, which governs custody decisions in family law, along with constitutional principles safeguarding the rights and dignity of children.
Throughout the proceedings, the bench stated the importance of maintaining a child-centric approach. Reference was also made to the High Court’s earlier ruling in Indu S. v. Thomas @ Manoj [2025 (3) KHC 295], which had laid down broad guidelines concerning children’s presence in judicial and police environments during custody litigation.
Notably, the Family Court's rationale behind involving the police station as a neutral venue for the child handover was not supported by the High Court. The Division Bench noted that such directives might be perceived as logistically neutral but were, in reality, emotionally counterproductive for children.
Given that the child’s physical custody had already been transferred and was nearing the conclusion of the interim period, the High Court did not find any pressing reason to set aside the Family Court’s decision regarding temporary custody. However, it kept the door open for reassessment of custody arrangements upon the child’s return on the stated date.
In its judgment, the High Court recorded its strong disapproval of the use of police stations for facilitating child custody exchanges. The bench observed, “We take this case as an opportunity to state something that is far more important, particularly qua the mental and physical health of children, who are caught in the cross-fire of litigation between their parents.”
The judges stated, “We have delivered judgment in Indu S. v. Thomas@Manoj reported as [2025 (3) KHC 295] emphatically declaring that children shall not be subjected to unnecessary presence in court premises; and we have done so being fully aware that this creates deep trauma for them.”
Referring directly to the facts of the current case, the court recorded, “We see that when the learned Family Court made an arrangement regarding the interim custody of the child involved, the exchange was directed to be done at a police station. In our view, this is worse than the child being forced to court premises and spaces and are sure that it requires no further expatiation or restatement.”
In further critique of the Family Court’s order, the Division Bench stated, “We fail to understand how the learned Family Court could have directed the child to be handed over in interim custody from a police station. We certainly cannot find favour with this.”
With respect to the interim custody granted to the father, the court recorded, “The impugned order specifies that the child will be returned to the mother – the appellant herein, by producing her at 11 a.m. on 27.05.2025 before the Court. Obviously, further custody arrangements with respect to her will have to be thought of and worked out by the learned Court in due course.”
Addressing the concern raised by the mother, the judges noted, “The mother has challenged the impugned order, asserting that the child is not safe with the father during the time frame fixed in it.” Nevertheless, they stated, “Since it is unreservedly admitted before us by both sides that the child has been with the father from 05.05.2025 until now... we find little cause for us to intervene at this stage.”
Finally, regarding the future course, the High Court observed, “Any further arrangement with respect to the child, including interim custody, shall be considered by the learned Family Court on 27.05.2025, after adverting to both sides.”
The High Court dismissed the appeal but issued a categorical directive regarding the venue of custody exchanges. It stated, “We deem it necessary that the learned Family Courts are directed not to create arrangements with respect to custody of children — be that permanent or interim — involving police stations in any manner.”
This was followed by a compliance order directed to the judiciary: “This direction shall be read in conjunction to our orders in Indu S. (supra). We direct the Registrar General of this Court to ensure that these directions are made known to all the Judges of learned Family Courts peremptorily.”
The bench concluded that while no interference with the current custody arrangement was warranted, systemic change was necessary to prevent recurrence of such practices. Hence, the appeal was dismissed without cost, and directions were confined to procedural reform affecting future custody cases.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Dr. V.N. Sankarjee, V.N. Madhusudanan, R. Udaya Jyothi, Keerthi B. Chandran, Vijayan Pillai P.K., Shilpa P.S., Unnikrishnan H., Aswin P.S., Shriya Merlin Maxwell
For the Respondents: Smt. C.M. Charisma
Case Title: XXX vs. YYY
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:34294
Case Number: MAT. APPEAL NO. 398 OF 2025
Bench: Justice Devan Ramachandran, Justice M.B. Snehalatha
[Read/Download order]
