LexNEETHU B. @ NEETHU BABY MATHEW versus RAJESH KUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1053 : 2025 INSC 853 Neethu B. @ Neethu Baby Mathew v. Rajesh Kumar (R.P. (C) No(s). 2273-2274 of 2024) In (Civil Appeal No(s). 5395-5396 of 2024) 15 July 2025 [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The petitioner-mother has preferred the instant review petitions primarily on the ground that the news of the imminent separation of the minor child (aged 11 years old at that time) from his mother, who has been his primary guardian since he was an infant, has caused an immense negative impact on the mental health of the child. Headnotes† Child and Family Welfare – Custody of Child – The High Court granted permanent custody of the child to the respondent- father while granting virtual visitation rights to the mother on every alternative day and physical visitation rights during one half of the school holidays, depending on whenever the petitioner intends to visit India – Appeals were dismissed by the Supreme Court effectively confirming the permanent custody of child in favour of the respondent – Petitioner-mother filed the instant review petition on the ground that immenent separation has caused negative impact on the mental health of the child: Held: 1. It is directed, inter-alia, that the minor is to remain in permanent custody of the petitioner-mother and respondent-father is allowed to see and interact with child virtually twice a week – The respondent is also permitted to visit child in-person for one day every weekend. [Para 36(a)(b)(c)] * Author 1054 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports 2. In the instant case, it becomes apparent that the child’s deteriorating mental health as a consequence of judicial order changing custody is a new development and a direct consequence of dismissal of appeals by this Court – Therefore, the change in the child’s emotional, mental and overall health, and the psychological assessment reports on the record certainly constitute new evidence which was not within the knowledge of the review petitioner at the time of hearing appeals, and could not have been produced before this Court at that time even after due diligence, on account of it being a post-decision development – Further, there is no room for doubt that in matters of custody, the best interest of the child remains at the heart of judicial adjudication and a factor adversely impacting the child’s welfare undeniably becomes a matter of such nature that has a direct bearing on the decision with the possibility to change it – Therefore, in the wake of new facts as detailed above, the review petitions at hand are deemed worth entertaining u/Art.137 of the Constitution of India and require indulgence of this Court. [Para 24] Consitution of India – Art.137 – Scope of Review – Custody of the Child: Held: The universally accepted tenets that such matters (custody matters) are to be dealt sensitively with due consideration to the emotional, intellectual, physical, financial, social and cultural needs of a growing child – Therefore, custody orders are always considered interlocutory orders and by the nature of such proceedings, custody orders cannot be made rigid and final – Rather, the Courts are entitled to alter and mould the custody orders in view of the best interest of the minor. [Para 14] Custody of the Child – Best Interest of Child – Factors that should be considered: Held: The factors defining the best interests of a child are multiple and range from quality education, a nurturing family environment, healthy worldly experiences, provision of basic amenities of life, meeting of financial requirements, access to a friendly social system to imparting of spiritual and cultural learnings – The list is naturally not an exhaustive one – However, the essential feature is that a secure, supportive and loving [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1055 Neethu B. @ Neethu Baby Mathew v. Rajesh Kumar family forms the bedrock of a healthy childhood experience and helps one grow into a balanced, positive and confident adult. [Para 25] Case Law Cited Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati [2013] 11 SCR 25 : (2013) 8 SCC 320 – relied on. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan [1965] 1 SCR 933 : AIR 1965 SC 845; O.N. Mohindroo v. Distt. Judge, Delhi [1971] 2 SCR 11 : (1971) 3 SCC 5; State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Kamal Sengupta & Ors. [2008] 10 SCR 4 : (2008) 8 SCC 612; Vikram Vir Vohra v. Shalini Bhalla [2010] 3 SCR 775 : (2010) 4 SCC 409; Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A Chakramakk
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.