Kerala High Court: In a child custody matter concerning whether the Family Court was justified in imposing onerous financial conditions while permitting a mother to take her minor child to the United Kingdom, the Division Bench of J. Nisha Banu and Shoba Annamma Eapen*, JJ. held that in child custody matters, the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child. The Court observed that although courts may impose safeguards while permitting a child to be taken abroad, such conditions must be reasonable, practical, and capable of compliance. Illusory or financially oppressive conditions effectively negate the permission granted by the court and ultimately undermine the child’s welfare. The Bench further noted that the 8-year-old child would receive better care and educational opportunities with the mother in the United Kingdom.
The petitioners, comprising the mother and her parents, challenged the Family Court’s order requiring the mother to furnish security of ₹75 lakhs and execute bonds of ₹7.5 lakhs each through 2 sureties as a condition for taking the child abroad. The mother, who was employed as a Senior Support Worker in the United Kingdom, had sought permission to relocate the child to provide better care and educational opportunities. While the Family Court accepted that the mother was financially stable and better placed to ensure the child’s welfare and accordingly permitted the relocation, it imposed the impugned conditions to secure the child’s return to India.
“Such onerous conditions would place the mother in a position where compliance is impracticable, which would ultimately be detrimental to the child’s welfare.”
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ritika Sharan v. Sujoy Ghosh, (2023) 12 SCC 579, the Court reiterated that the welfare of the child is the overriding consideration and that unnecessary financial burdens should not be imposed on the custodial parent. The Court found that there was no allegation that the mother had previously violated any court order or attempted to frustrate the father’s visitation or custody rights. Consequently, the requirement to furnish security of ₹75 lakhs served no legitimate purpose other than denying the child access to better educational opportunities abroad.
Holding that the impugned conditions were excessively onerous and contrary to the best interests of the child, the Court set aside Conditions 1 and 3 of the Family Court’s order. However, it directed the mother to file an undertaking before the Family Court agreeing to abide by all the remaining conditions imposed in the order and to strictly comply with them. The original petition was accordingly allowed, reaffirming that conditions imposed in custody matters must facilitate, rather than frustrate, the paramount objective of securing the welfare and best interests of the child.
[Nimmy T.B. v. Shanju, 2026 SCC OnLine Ker 5968, decided on 19-6-2026]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioners: Prabhu K.N., Elizabeth Cyriac, Zanhar C., Akshara V.A., Dhilsha Habeeb, and Christo Simon.
