They May Be Divorced as Husband and Wife, But They Can Never Be Divorced as Parents: Kerala HC Closes Contempt Petition, Affirms Equal Parental Role in Special Child’s Education and Therapy
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha held that a father is entitled to participate in his child’s therapy sessions and educational activities, provided it does not cause any distress or discomfort to the child. The Court directed closure of the contempt case filed by the petitioner and allowed him liberty to engage in his child’s progress. The judgment made clear that both parents must share responsibilities towards their special-needs child, despite their marital separation. The Court concluded the matter by recording the undertaking of the respondent that she will facilitate the child’s interaction with the petitioner as directed.
The contempt petition arose from a previous judgment in Mat. Appeal No. 1096 of 2024. The petitioner, a 45-year-old father, approached the Court claiming that the respondent, the mother of the child, had not been allowing him to interact with their child despite directions issued in the earlier judgment. Represented by Smt. Smruthi Sasidharan, the petitioner clarified during proceedings that the contempt petition was not intended to initiate punitive action against the respondent. Instead, it stemmed from a misunderstanding, and the petitioner merely sought to play an active role in his child’s life.
The petitioner’s submissions focused on his desire to fulfil parental obligations by being part of the child's schooling and therapy sessions, considering that the child has special needs. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner filed the present contempt case based on a perception that may no longer be accurate.
In response, Sri V. Philip Mathews, appearing for the respondent, submitted that the mother had never disobeyed the Court’s earlier order. He argued that the child was reluctant to interact with the petitioner primarily because of her special condition and a set of physical issues at the relevant time. Several medical documents were presented as evidence to support this claim, filed under I.A. No. 1/2025. These included certificates and reports from various hospitals and psychological wellness canters indicating the child’s physical and emotional challenges.
Annexure R1 series submitted by the respondent included reports and certificates from Child Development Centre, Medical College Hospital (28.07.2016); ICCONS-TVM (03.10.2016); outpatient records (19.06.2017); treatment certificates from Medical College Hospital (15.07.2017); a medical condition certificate from KIMS Health Centre (03.04.2023); psychological assessments from Vany George (09.03.2024), Arun Jacob (12.03.2024), and Dr. Uma Krishnan (18.02.2025); and an assessment report from Travancore National School (11.05.2025). These materials suggested the child was undergoing sustained therapeutic treatment for multiple issues.
Despite their differences, both parties, through counsel, acknowledged the importance of collaborative parenting. The child had shown clear attachment to her mother and resistance toward the father. The Court allowed a brief interaction between the child and the father during the session, but the child refused to engage with him and instead sought comfort with the mother.
The Court began its judgment with the observation: "The petitioner says that he has approached this Court through this contempt case under the impression – which perhaps is not true anymore – that the mother is not allowing the child to interact with him."
The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s clarification, noting: "She thus prayed that this contempt case be closed; but that it be clarified that her client can be part of the schooling and therapy sessions of his child – she being a special one – so that his obligations as a parent can be discharged by him to his satisfaction."
From the respondent’s side, the Court recorded: "His client has never violated the orders of this Court, but that the child was unwilling to go to the father, primarily because she is a special one and also since she was suffering from certain physical indispositions at the relevant time."
The Court referred to the ongoing conflict as "rather unfortunate" and remarked: "The child requires every care that the parents can give her, without any condition and in an unqualified manner." The judgment further noted: "The rights of the child are that we are concerned about, and not that of the parties."
Referring to a previous judgment in Indu S. v. Thomas @ Manoj [2025 (3) KHC 295], the Court stated: "Parties to litigation involving matrimonial issues, more often, forget the impact their actions create on the child. There can be no greater example than this case."
Describing the Court’s personal interaction with the child, the Bench observed: "We allowed the father to be with the child. However, the latter refused to even meet eyes with the former... She, no doubt, is attached to her mother, not as a parent alone but also as a caregiver; and perhaps, the thought that this litigation may finally entail action against her mother, must be disturbing her."
In its broader commentary on parental duties, the Court made a poignant statement: "They may be divorced as husband and wife, but they can never be divorced as parents. Their responsibilities as parents will continue as long as they live, notwithstanding whether they are husband and wife."
The Court advocated cooperative parenting and stated equal involvement in the child’s upbringing: "Both the parents must be given equal opportunities and liberties in the life and progress of the child, particularly when she undergoes therapy and education."
The Court concluded by stating that the contempt petition would be closed. The petitioner was granted liberty to take part in his child’s therapy and educational development.
"The petitioner will be at full liberty to be part of the therapy sessions and to monitor the educational progress and personal life of the child; however, without causing her any vexation, and understanding that his obligation is to give her the maximum care and protection, bereft of threat or intimidation."
Finally, the Court recorded the respondent’s undertaking: "We record the undertaking of Sri.V.Philip Mathews, made on behalf of the respondent, that his client will facilitate direction (b) above without any impediment in future."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Smt. Smruthi Sasidharan and Sri. V.P. Brijesh
For the Respondent: Sri. V. Philip Mathews, Smt. Athulya Sebastian, Shri. Aby Skaria
Case Title: Navin Scariah v. Priya Abraham
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:42893
Case Number: CON.CASE(C) No. 1261 of 2025
Bench: Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha
[Read/Download order]
