Summary Of The Judgment: Neethu B. @ Neethu Baby Vs. Rajesh Kumar

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Title: Neethu B. @ Neethu Baby Vs. Rajesh Kumar
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Date of Judgment: July 15, 2025
Case Numbers: R.P. (C) Nos. 2273-2274/2024 in Civil Appeal Nos. 5395-5396/2024

2. Related Laws and Legal Provisions

The judgment refers to the following legal principles and provisions:

• Article 137 of the Constitution of India: Grants the Supreme Court the power to review its judgments.

• Scope of Review Jurisdiction: As outlined in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013) and State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta (2008), review is permissible only under specific conditions:
  Discovery of new and important evidence.
  Error apparent on the face of the record.
  Any other sufficient reason.

• Child Custody Principles:
  Paramount consideration is the welfare of the child (Vikram Vir Vohra v. Shalini Bhalla, 2010).
  Custody orders are interlocutory and can be modified based on changing circumstances (Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, 1973).
  Courts must consider emotional, psychological, and physical well-being of the child.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Parties Involved:
  Petitioner (Mother): Neethu B. @ Neethu Baby (remarried with two children, including one from her current marriage).
  Respondent (Father): Rajesh Kumar (unmarried, government employee).

• Background:
  The couple divorced in 2015, with custody granted to the mother and visitation rights to the father.
  The mother remarried in 2016 and intended to relocate to Malaysia with the child.
  The father filed for permanent custody, alleging alienation and lack of visitation.
  The High Court granted custody to the father, but the Supreme Court (in review) reversed this decision.

• Key Issue: Whether the change in custody was in the best interest of the child, given his psychological distress.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

(A) Factual Background

• The couple married in 2011, had a son in 2012, and separated in 2013.

• In 2015, they mutually agreed to divorce, with custody granted to the mother.

• The mother remarried in 2016 and planned to move to Malaysia with the child.

• The father claimed he was unaware of the child’s whereabouts and alleged that the mother changed the child’s religion without consent.

• The Family Court (2022) upheld the mother’s custody but restricted international relocation.

• The High Court (2023) overturned this and granted custody to the father.

• The Supreme Court initially dismissed the mother’s appeal (2024) but later reviewed it based on new psychological evidence.

(B) Grounds for Review

• New Evidence: Psychological reports from CMC Vellore (2024-25) showed the child suffered from separation anxiety due to the custody change.

• Error in Judgment: The Court acknowledged that the child’s mental health was not adequately considered earlier.

• Best Interest of Child: The child (now 12) had lived with the mother since infancy and had strong emotional bonds with her and his stepfamily.

(C) Supreme Court’s Decision

• Permanent Custody: Restored to the mother, as sudden separation would harm the child’s mental health.

• Visitation Rights for Father:
  Virtual meetings: Twice a week (30 mins each).
  Physical visits: Every weekend (10 AM–5 PM) at Family Court, Ottapalam.

• Travel Restrictions:
  The mother cannot relocate abroad permanently but can take the child during holidays (Onam, Christmas, summer vacations).
  She must inform the court and father before international travel.

• Psychological Care:
  The child must continue therapy; both parents must participate in counseling.
  A reassessment at CMC Vellore was ordered within three months.

(D) Key Observations

• Child’s Welfare is Supreme: Courts must prioritize emotional stability over rigid legal principles.

• Gradual Bonding: The father must build a relationship with the child slowly, not through forced custody.

• Parental Responsibilities: Both parents were advised to cooperate for the child’s well-being.

(E) Final Order

• The Supreme Court set aside its earlier order (22.08.2024) and the High Court’s judgment (17.10.2023).

• The Family Court’s 2022 order was partially restored, with modified visitation rights.

5. Conclusion

This judgment reaffirms that child custody cases must focus on the child’s best interests, not just legal technicalities. The Supreme Court recognized that abrupt custody changes can cause psychological harm, emphasizing stability, emotional security, and gradual parental bonding. The ruling balances the mother’s custody rights with the father’s visitation rights while ensuring the child’s mental well-being remains protected.