Arathy Ramachandran vs Bijay Raj Menon 2025 case drew attention due to its sensitive nature involving young children, cross-border parenting and psychological effects of shared interim custody. It highlighted the proactive approach of the Supreme Court in balancing parental rights with the best interests of the children, especially concerning emotional well-being and stability. Discover more in-depth analyses of important Supreme Court decisions by exploring Recent Judgements of Supreme Court.

Arathy Ramachandran vs Bijay Raj Menon 2025 Introduction

The landmark judgement Arathy Ramachandran vs Bijay Raj Menon 2025 revolves around a significant custody battle between estranged parents that reached the Supreme Court of India. The dispute involved the interim custody and welfare of two minor children, focusing on whether a non-residential father living abroad could be granted shared custody, especially of a toddler.

Download Free Arathy Ramachandran vs Bijay Raj Menon PDF

The case at hand centres around a custody dispute between estranged parents. The parents were well-established professionals and were concerned regarding their two minor children born out of their marriage in 2014. Following marital discord and eventual separation, the appellant-mother sought permanent custody which prompted a legal battle that has progressed from the Family Court to the High Court of Kerala and now before the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition challenged interim custody rights granted to the respondent-father. The following are the facts of Arathy Ramachandran vs Bijay Raj Menon -

Arathy Ramachandran vs Bijay Raj Menon Case Facts

The appellant-mother and the respondent-father, both were highly qualified professionals. Their marriage was solemnized in the year 2014. From this marriage, two children were born - a daughter on 23rd July, 2016 and a son on 5th July,2022.

The couple began experiencing marital discord in 2017 which led them to live separately, despite occasional reconciliation efforts. During one such effort in 2021, the Appellant conceived and gave birth to their second child.

Presently, the appellant-mother works from home for an IT company whereas the respondent-father serves as a General Manager in a construction company in Singapore.

Initial Legal Proceedings

In June 2024, the appellant-mother approached the Family Court in Thiruvananthapuram fearing that the respondent-father might forcibly take away the children. She filed an Original Petition under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and sought permanent custody. On 7th June 2024, the Family Court restrained the respondent-father from forcibly removing the children from the appellant’s custody.

Application by the Respondent for Visitation

On 22nd July 2024, the respondent-father filed an interlocutory application in the same Family Court and sought interim custody and visitation rights. On 7th October 2024, the Family Court permitted him to meet the children on the second Saturday of every month between 10:00 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. at the Court premises and allowed weekly video calls (except the second Saturday) from 7:00 p.m. to 7:20 p.m.

High Court Proceedings

Dissatisfied with the limited access, the respondent-father filed an original petition before the High Court of Kerala under Article 227 of the Constitution and challenged the order of the Family Court.

On 11th December 2024, the Kerala High Court granted interim shared custody to both parents and allotted 15 days of custody each month to both the mother and father until the final decision in the custody case. The Court also laid down the following conditions for the father:

1. He must file an undertaking regarding a rented, furnished flat (No. 5A SFS, City Space, Thiruvananthapuram) and the hiring of a nanny.
2. He must arrange transportation for the children to and from school or any designated place.
3. He shall not take the children to Thrissur.
4. He is allowed to bring his mother to Thiruvananthapuram without court permission.
5. He must provide a safe and healthy environment.
6. During school vacations (end of March to end of May), the same custody arrangement will apply.
7. During examinations, the children will remain with the mother two weeks in advance; she must notify the father in advance.
8. Both parties must permit 15-minute daily video calls when the children are with the other parent.
9. The father must undergo parental counselling.

Appeal Before the Supreme Court

Aggrieved by the order of the Kerala High Court of granting shared interim custody, the appellant-mother has filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and sought to set aside the order of the High Court.

Arathy Ramachandran vs Bijay Raj Menon 2025 Legal Issues

The following issues were also addressed in Arathy Ramachandran vs Bijay Raj Menon 2025:

1. Whether the Kerala High Court was justified in granting alternating 15-day interim custody of the children to both parents?

The Supreme Court examined if such an arrangement served the best interests and welfare of the children especially considering their emotional, physical and psychological well-being.

2. Whether the custody of a three-year-old boy can be granted to a non-residential father living abroad?

The Supreme Court in Arathy Ramachandran vs Bijay Raj Menon questioned the appropriateness of giving interim custody of a toddler to the father who resides in Singapore, especially when the child had barely lived with him and shared a strong attachment to the mother.

3. Whether the respondent-father adhered to the conditions imposed by the High Court during interim custody?

A major concern was the failure of the father to provide home-cooked food and hire a nanny—both of which were directed by the High Court in its interim custody order.

4. Whether splitting the custody of siblings disrupts their emotional bond and development?

The Court also examined if periodic separation of the daughter from her younger brother adversely impacted both psychological development of the children and sense of security.

On 29th April, 2025, the Supreme Court of India in Arathy Ramachandran vs Bijay Raj Menon 2025 set aside the order of the High Court and granted 15-day interim custody each month to the father.

The Supreme Court issued an order on 6th January 2025 and stayed the decision of the Kerala High Court that had granted interim custody of the minor son to the respondent-father. The Court reinstated the Family Court’s arrangement for the son but continued the interim custody of the daughter with the father, as per the High Court's direction.

On 2nd April 2025, the appellant-mother appeared in person and the respondent-father appeared virtually. At that time, the girl was with the father but by 8th/9th April 2025, the Court restored her interim custody to the mother.

After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court in Arathy Ramachandran vs Bijay Raj Menon 2025 decided to interact with the girl child in person on 16th April 2025. The interaction was held in-camera and the Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta separately spoke with the child and her parents. The mother raised concerns about the quality of care during the father’s interim custody, specifically that he failed to hire a nanny as directed and relied only on restaurant food. She also pointed out the child’s isolation and lack of emotional support during these periods.

The father admitted he did not hire a nanny but defended his efforts and stated that he traveled from Singapore regularly to be with the child and that his mother occasionally visited to provide home-cooked meals and companionship. He expressed willingness to take steps to restore the family unit but the Court chose not to address the marital conflict.

The Court in Arathy Ramachandran vs Bijay Raj Menon found the girl to be intelligent and articulate. She expressed discomfort with the 15-day alternating custody arrangement and confirmed that she received no home-cooked meals or companionship besides her father during those stays.

Relying on well-established principles that place the welfare of the child above all, the Court concluded that the alternating 15-day custody system was harmful, especially for the three-year-old boy who had little contact with his father. The Supreme Court ruled that such an arrangement could cause emotional trauma and insecurity for both children.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court in Arathy Ramachandran vs Bijay Raj Menon set aside the order of the High Court of granting 15-day interim custody each month to the father. However, recognizing the father’s love and willingness to be involved, the Supreme Court devised a revised custody arrangement:

• The father will have interim custody of the daughter on alternate Saturdays and Sundays each month.
• On those same days, he may also spend four hours with the son, supervised by a Court-approved child counsellor.
• The father must either keep the current flat or find a suitable furnished one in Thiruvananthapuram to facilitate visitation.
• He must also make sincere efforts to provide home-cooked meals to the children during custody.
• The father may make 15-minute video calls to the children on Tuesdays and Thursdays, with timing arranged mutually or through legal counsel.
• The Family Court must expedite the guardianship proceedings filed by the mother.

Finally, the Supreme Court on 29th April, 2025 in Arathy Ramachandran vs Bijay Raj Menon reversed the High Court’s order dated 11th December, 2024 and allowed the appeal. It also disposed of all pending applications.

Conclusion

The judgement Arathy Ramachandran vs Bijay Raj Menon 2025 the Supreme Court on 29th April, 2025 prioritized the welfare of the children over procedural equity and set aside the order of Kerala High Court of alternating 15-day custody. Instead, it crafted a nuanced visitation arrangement and highlighted emotional support, continuity and child development.