Kerala High Court
Amina Huda U.F vs Jiyas P.K on 28 January, 2026
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2026:KER:7101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 8TH MAGHA, 1947
OP (FC) NO. 31 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2025 IN OP NO.457 OF 2023 OF
FAMILY COURT, VADAKARA
PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT:
AMINA HUDA U.F
AGED 27 YEARS
D/O. FAREED, RESIDING AT GULSAR HOUSE,
NADUVANNUR P.O. , KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
. REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND
FATHER FAREED K.,S/O. KOYAKUTTY, GULZAR HOUSE,
NADUVANNUR P.O. KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN - 673614
BY ADVS.
SHRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD
SHRI.JOSE ANTONY
SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN P.
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
JIYAS P.K
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O. DR. ABDUL MAJEED,
RESIDING AT THANAS HOUSE, CHEVAYUR VILLAGE,
MERIKKUNNU P.O.,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673012
OP(FC)NO.31 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:7101
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
SMT.N.V.SANDHYA
SMT.DHANUJA M.S
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(FC)NO.31 OF 2026
3
2026:KER:7101
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The petitioner was earlier married to the respondent; but the matrimony went into rough waters, thus culminating in their divorce.
2. It transpires that the respondent, thereupon, filed OP No.457/2023 before the learned Family Court, Vadakara, seeking permanent custody of his now 5 year old son, in which, the petitioner filed IA No.12/2025 seeking his interim custody and to take him with her to the United Kingdom (in short, the UK), where she is working. This application was allowed through the Ext.P3 order, against which, the respondent filed OP(FC) No.194 of 2025 before this court, which was allowed through the Ext.P4 judgment. In the said judgment, it is recorded that the petitioner - mother was not, at least at that time, in full capacity to take the child with her to the UK; and this is evident from the observations of this OP(FC)NO.31 OF 2026 4 2026:KER:7101 court in paragraph 6 thereof. This was because, she had admitted that she was trying to obtain a permanent employment, which would enable her to take care of the child as any mother would; and hence this Court thought it better not to allow her to take the child with her at that time, but clarified that until she becomes capable of doing so, the arrangement made in an earlier interim order dated 11.04.2025 - which has been extracted in Ext.P4 - will continue to bind the parties.
3. Thereafter, Con(C) No. 2680 of 2025 was filed by the wife, alleging violation of Ext. P4 judgment; and we passed a judgment in it, as evident from Ext. P5, where we made certain modifications, finding that there were some errors in our directions earlier. Consequent to this, Ext.P4 judgment was corrected by us suo motu, as evidenced by Ext.P5.
4. The parties are thus bound by the cumulative directions in Exts. P4 and P5; but taking advantage of the liberty to be reserved to the petitioner, she OP(FC)NO.31 OF 2026 5 2026:KER:7101 then moved IA No.15 of 2025 before the learned Family Court, Vadakara, invoking the provisions of Section 43 of the Guardians and Wards Act, seeking that she be allowed to take the child, asserting that she has now become capable of his care, she having obtained a full-time job and enjoying a visa.
5. The learned Family Court, however, dismissed the application, holding that, as long as the petitioner is in the UK on a "dependent visa", she can never be seen to be independent; and therefore that, even though she may have a permanent employment, the child cannot be allowed to be with her, nor can he be construed to be safe in her custody. The petitioner was thus directed to hand over the child to the respondent, presumably being guided by the directions this Court issued earlier in Exts. P4 and P5.
6. The petitioner challenges the order of the learned Family Court - producing it as Ext. P20 - primarily asserting that the findings therein are OP(FC)NO.31 OF 2026 6 2026:KER:7101 contrary to true facts and to the applicable law.
7. Sri. O.V. Maniprasad - appearing for the petitioner, argued that, when the learned Family Court had found that his client has permanent employment in the UK, the factum of her residing there on a "dependent visa", on the strength of her husband's visa, could not have been used against her. He conceded that his client is now residing in the UK with her present husband, but that this will not denude her of the right of being a mother to her child; and resultantly that the findings of the learned Family Court contrary to this are uncharitable and unfortunate. He prayed that Ext. P20 be, therefore, set aside and his client's application, namely IA No. 15 of 2025, be allowed.
8. Sri. B. Krishnamani - learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the Ext. P20 order of the learned Family Court is irreproachable because, it has correctly concluded that the petitioner is not OP(FC)NO.31 OF 2026 7 2026:KER:7101 enjoying independent status in the UK and is living as a dependent on her present husband. He argued that when this status is so without contest, the factum of her having employment - be it permanent or temporary
- would be of no avail; and that the learned Family Court has, therefore, acted in deference of the specific directions of this Court in Exts. P4 and P5. He further contended that the child, who is now in his client's custody, is unwilling to go to his mother; being very happy to be with him and his parents in India, and hence that the Family Court could not have ordered to send him away to the UK along with his mother, against his wishes.
9. No doubt, central to the issue before us is what the child wants.
10. The petitioner's mother was present before us, along with the child, as also the respondents.
11. We had a detailed interaction with the child, who, though very articulate and confident, became rather quiet when we pointedly asked him if he OP(FC)NO.31 OF 2026 8 2026:KER:7101 wants to go with his mother. He exhibited a certain amount of fear to express his mind freely in front of his father; but, when we suggested that he then return with him, he suddenly exploded into tears, crying aloud and clinging to his maternal grandmother. Sri. B. Krishnamani vehemently asserted that this was because of the "tutoring" the mother has done; and we therefore, asked the father to take the child and talk to him within the court premises. The reaction of the child even to this was distressing to us because, he started crying out so loud, that his wails could be heard throughout the court; and he did not stop until such time as he finally found his way back to his maternal grandmother.
12. Sri. B. Krishnamani, learned counsel for the respondent, argued that the afore noticed behavior of the child is solely on account of the "poisoning" (sic) - whatever that means - of the petitioner and her family; but unequivocally conceded that, for the OP(FC)NO.31 OF 2026 9 2026:KER:7101 last nearly four or five months, the child has been with his client. He nevertheless asserted that this period has not been sufficient for his client to clear his "child's brain of all the - negative influences - fed to him over the years by the petitioner"; and that it is solely, therefore, he is showing the kind of behavior we witnessed.
13. We are literally taken aback - as any reasonable mind will be - hearing the above imputation from Sri. B. Krishnamani. Children may be young, but they certainly have a mind of their own. Their preferences are clear; and when a child insist that he wants to go with his mother and to be reunited with her, we find nothing unusual in it.
14. No doubt, every parent have - be that father or mother - rights over their child; but cannot fight with each other unmindful of the cataclysmic consequences on him/her.
15. What we saw today was a disturbing illustration of what happens to a child caught in OP(FC)NO.31 OF 2026 10 2026:KER:7101 litigation between his parents; being pulled from one to the other and torn between their obdurate stands.
16. The child may not be fully comprehending what goes on around him; but we see in him today a deep desire to meet his mother and to be with her, as any child of his age would normally want. Of course, this may not automatically mean that he has any deep seated hatred for the father, or that he does not like to be with him.
17. However, the child, today, exhibited alienation from his father; but we would assume that this is solely because he feels that the latter is standing in his way of traveling to his mother and being with her. This is something that we can take care of in the future; but the question is what happens if we don't accede to the child's desire, which he has expressed so strongly and passionately before us. We have little doubt that if this is to be disregarded, it would have far-reaching consequences; and that it would leave a situation where his growth OP(FC)NO.31 OF 2026 11 2026:KER:7101 as a worthy citizen would severely prejudiced.
18. Coming back to the merits of the matter, as luculent from Ext.P4 judgment, this Court wanted the child to be with the mother; but did not permit it then only because we were not persuaded to the confidence that she would be able to take care of him, without proper employment or residential status.
19. However, the situation stands altered now, with the petitioner asserting that she has a permanent employment; but the only reason why the learned Family Court still does not find in her favor is because she is on a "dependent visa". We are afraid that this is a misdirected way of looking at the situation because, when the petitioner is admittedly married to one who has a visa to remain in the UK, it is only natural that she, as his spouse, has been given a dependent visa - which means that she can continue in the UK as long as he does. This does not mean that the residential status of the mother is in any manner denuded, or that she cannot OP(FC)NO.31 OF 2026 12 2026:KER:7101 live her life as any other person in the UK. This is more so when she has full-time employment; says that she has enough resources to take care of the child.
20. Add to this, his definite desire that we have seen from the child, runs completely counter to the arguments of Sri. B. Krishnamani, that he is unwilling to go to the mother.
21. We are, therefore, left without any doubt that the learned Family Court has erred in not allowing the child to reunite with his mother, inspite of his deep desire to do so.
22. In the above circumstances, we allow this original petition and set aside Ext.P20, thus allowing IA No.15 of 2025; consequently permitting the petitioner to take the child with her to the UK.
23. This OP so ordered, however, we must also be careful that the child is not alienated from the father. We, therefore, further order that as long as the child is with the mother in the UK, the following arrangement will be ensured by her without fail. OP(FC)NO.31 OF 2026 13 2026:KER:7101
a) The child will be allowed to talk to the father every day in the evening, (UK time), on video call and voice call, in between 6 PM and 8 PM; and we record the undertaking of Sri. O. V. Maniprasad that this will be facilitated by his client.
b) The mother shall not change the nationality of the child, without the express consent of the respondent.
c) The mother is obligated to ensure that the child will be brought to India at least for a month every year, and that this shall coincide with the annual leave of the child as per his school calendar. For this, the petitioner shall inform the respondent of her trip to India at least one month in advance, by email/WhatsApp/phone; and after she reaches India, she will hand over interim custody of the child to him, for a minimum of twenty days of the said period. OP(FC)NO.31 OF 2026 14 2026:KER:7101 Any violation of this will result in the benefit of this judgment being lost to the petitioner, without any further orders from this court. For the purpose of the above, the place of the exchange of the child shall be in front of the gate of the residence of the mother at Koyilandy.
This OP is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA JUDGE HKH/28.01.2026 OP(FC)NO.31 OF 2026 15 2026:KER:7101 APPENDIX OF OP (FC) NO. 31 OF 2026 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE OP(GW) NO. 457 OF 2023 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, VADAKARA . EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.01.2025 IN OP NO. 804 OF 2024 OF THE FAMILY COURT, VATAKARA EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.03.2025 IN IA NO. 12/2025 IN OP(GW) NO. 457/2023 OF THE FAMILY COURT, VATAKARA EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.06.2025 IN OP(FC) NO. 194/2025. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.11.2025 IN CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) NO. 2680 OF 2025 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO. 15/2025 IN OP(GW) 457 OF 2023 DATED 27.09.2025 EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT TO IA 15/2025 . EXHIBIT P8 THE PETITIONER PRODUCED A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PERSONAL DETAILS PAGE OF HER PASSPORT EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE DIGITAL COPY OF THE E-
VISA SHOWING IMMIGRATION STATUS IN UK, A TRUE COPY .
EXHIBIT P10 THE PETITIONER PRODUCED APOSTILLED COPIES OF STATEMENT OF PERSONAL BANK ACCOUNT WITH MONSO BANK, A TRUE COPY OF THE SAME .
EXHIBIT P11 THE PETITIONER PRODUCED BANK STATEMENT OF REVOULT BANK .
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE WATER BILL ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER BY SOUTHERN WATER ON
28.08.2025 .
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE WATER BILL ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER BY SOUTHERN WATER ON
28.08.2025 .
EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
07.06.2025 BY MEYRICK COURT MANAGEMENT TO THE PETITIONER .
OP(FC)NO.31 OF 2026 16 2026:KER:7101 EXHIBIT P 15 TRUE COPY OF THE FORMAL OFFER LETTER AND CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT DATED 27.06.2025 EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.08.2025 ISSUED BY THE REGISTERED MANAGER, CUMBRIA HOUSE CARE HOME. EXHIBIT P17 . A TRUE COPY OF THE MONTHLY SALARY SLIPS OF THE PETITIONER FOR JUNE AND AUGUST, 2025 PAID ON 11.07.2025 AND MONTHLY SALARY SLIP PAID ON 05.09.2025 .
EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE TENANCY AGREEMENT DATED 08.08.2025 EXHIBIT P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO THE KENT COUNTRY COUNCIL DATED 07.06.2025 . EXHIBIT P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.10.2025 IN IA NO. 15/2025 IN OP NO. 457 OF 2023 OF THE FAMILY COURT, VATAKARA .
EXHIBIT P21 A TRUE COPY OF THE APOSTILLED AFFIDAVIT DATED 13.11.2025.
EXHIBIT P22 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-VISA ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER .
EXHIBIT P23 A TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 21.10.2025 .
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-R1(H) A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOTS OF WHATSAPP VIDEO CALLS EXHIBIT-R1(G) A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOTS OF WHATSAPP VIDEO CALLS EXHIBIT-R1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOTS OF WHATSAPP VIDEO CALLS EXHIBIT-R1(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOTS OF WHATSAPP VIDEO CALLS EXHIBIT-R1(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOTS OF WHATSAPP VIDEO CALLS EXHIBIT-R1(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOTS OF WHATSAPP VIDEO CALLS EXHIBIT-R1(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOTS OF WHATSAPP VIDEO CALLS EXHIBIT-R1(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOTS OF WHATSAPP VIDEO CALLS EXHIBIT-R1(I) A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOTS OF WHATSAPP VIDEO CALLS OP(FC)NO.31 OF 2026 17 2026:KER:7101 EXHIBIT-R1(J) A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOTS OF WHATSAPP VIDEO CALLS EXHIBIT-R1(K) A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOTS OF WHATSAPP VIDEO CALLS EXHIBIT-R1(L) A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOTS OF WHATSAPP VIDEO CALLS EXHIBIT-R1(M) A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOTS OF WHATSAPP VIDEO CALLS EXHIBIT-R1(N) A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOTS OF WHATSAPP VIDEO CALLS EXHIBIT-R1(O) A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOTS OF WHATSAPP VIDEO CALLS EXHIBIT-R1(P) A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM METRA HOSPITAL, CENTRE FOR BORNE AND JOINT CARE, DIVISION OF JOINT REPLACEMENT AND ARTHROSCOPY, KOZHIKODE DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT-R1(Q) A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL DETAILS DATED 10/6/2025.
EXHIBIT-R1(R) A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 14/11/2025 IN C.C.C.NO.2680/2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.