The Supreme Court recently overturned a Kerala High Court decision that had granted temporary custody of two minor children to their father.The bench of judges Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta  found that the father had failed to meet his basic responsibilities as a caregiver. Specifically, they noted that he had not provided the children with proper care, nor had he ensured they received nutritious, home-cooked meals, which are essential for their well-being.

The Supreme Court bench stressed that regularly eating restaurant food could be harmful, particularly for young children. It pointed out that an eight-year-old needs balanced, home-cooked meals for healthy growth, something the father had failed to provide. The court said, “It’s well known that eating out frequently can harm health, even for adults. But the nutritional needs of a growing eight-year-old require home-cooked food, which the father is not able to provide.”

The bench also expressed concern about the father's limited time with the children due to his work commitments. The judges noted that his busy schedule meant he couldn't fully engage with the children during the custody period. "We might have considered giving the father a chance to make proper arrangements for the child’s meals.

However, the fact that the child has no company except the father during the 15-day interim custody period further weighs heavily against the father’s request for custody at this stage," the court observed.The couple got married in 2014, separated in 2017 and have two children. In June 2024, the mother sought permanent custody in a family court. The court granted her temporary custody, allowing the father to meet the children once a month and have weekly video calls.

Dissatisfied, the father appealed to the Kerala High Court, which gave him 15 days of custody each month, with conditions like hiring a nanny and ensuring a supportive environment. The mother then took the case to the Supreme Court, which found the father had not met the conditions. He hadn't hired a nanny or provided home-cooked meals. The eight-year-old daughter told the court she felt uncomfortable with the custody changes and mentioned feeling lonely when staying with her father, where they only ate restaurant food.

The court said that the eight-year-old daughter appeared disturbed by switching homes every 15 days. It also expressed concern for the three-year-old son, who barely spent time with his father and could suffer psychological harm if separated from his mother. It also criticized the High Court's temporary custody order, saying it wasn't supported by evidence and could cause lasting emotional harm to the children.

The court emphasized that custody decisions must prioritize the child’s best interests, not emotional arguments from either parent. While the father's involvement was acknowledged, the court allowed only limited visitation. The father is now allowed to meet his daughter on alternate weekends and spend up to four hours with his son, as long as the child feels comfortable and a court-approved child counsellor supervises the interaction.

The court also approved video calls between the father and children for 15 minutes every Tuesday and Thursday, at mutually convenient times. Also, the court directed the family court to fast-track the proceedings in the mother's custody case. Senior Advocate Haripriya Padmanabhan, along with advocates Santosh Krishnan and Sonam Anand, represented the mother, while Senior Advocate Rajesh Kumar Pandey and Advocate Aswathi MK appeared for the father.