Divorce marks the end of a marital relationship, but does it absolve individuals of their duties as parents? This pressing question lies at the heart of numerous custody and visitation disputes in India. Recent judicial pronouncements, including the Kerala High Court’s decision in Navin Scariah v. Priya Abraham (2025), reiterate that while marriage may end, parenthood does not. This article explores the legal contours of co-parenting obligations post-divorce under Indian law.
What is Co-Parenting?
Co-parenting refers to a shared parenting arrangement in which both divorced or separated parents actively participate in the upbringing of their child. It involves cooperation, communication, and mutual respect for the child’s well-being. The objective is to minimise the negative effects of divorce on children by ensuring they receive emotional, physical, and financial support from both parents.
Background of the Case
The genesis of this case lies in a matrimonial appeal (MAT Appeal No. 1096 of 2024) that had been adjudicated earlier. The petitioner, Navin Scariah, alleged that the respondent, Priya Abraham, was not allowing their specially-abled child to interact with him, despite court directions permitting such interaction. Acting on this belief, he moved a contempt petition.
However, when the matter came up for hearing, the petitioner clarified — through his counsel — that he did not seek punitive action but merely wanted to be involved in his child’s life and therapy sessions.
Petitioner’s Submissions
Advocate Smt. Smruthi Sasidharan, appearing for the petitioner, candidly admitted that the contempt petition stemmed from a misunderstanding. Her client’s real intention was to remain engaged in his child’s development — especially given her special needs — and she requested the Court to clarify his rights in this regard.
Respondent’s Submissions
Counsel for the respondent, Sri. V. Philip Mathews, denied any breach of the Court’s earlier orders. He explained that the child’s reluctance to interact with her father stemmed from her emotional and physical condition, not from any obstruction by the mother. He submitted various medical certificates and reports to substantiate his claim, underscoring that the child was undergoing continuous therapy and had special requirements.
Legal Framework Governing Child Custody and Co-Parenting in India
1. Guardians and Wards Act, 1890
Under this statute, the court appoints a guardian for a minor when the parents are unable or unfit to exercise their natural guardianship. In custody battles, the welfare of the child is paramount.
2. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
Applicable to Hindus, this law recognises the father as the natural guardian; however, the custody of a child under five years is typically awarded to the mother. Post-divorce, the court may modify guardianship or custody orders considering the best interest of the child.
3. Personal Laws and Custody
Personal laws (Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Parsi) have specific provisions for custody, but the overarching principle remains the same: the child’s welfare is of utmost importance.
4. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
India, being a signatory to the CRC, has an obligation to ensure a child’s right to parental care and interaction, even if the parents are separated or divorced.
Court Observations
The Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha issued a thoughtful and empathetic judgment.
1. Rights of the Child over Parental Disputes
The Court highlighted that the focus of any litigation involving custody or visitation must center around the child’s welfare, not the rights or grievances of the parents. The judges noted:
“The rights of the child are what we are concerned about, and not that of the parties.”
2. Impact of Parental Conflict on Specially-Abled Children
During the hearing, the judges observed the child’s emotional detachment from the father. Despite being in the courtroom, the child refused eye contact and clung to the mother — suggesting a deep emotional reliance. The Court remarked:
“She, no doubt, is attached to her mother, not as a parent alone but also as a caregiver.”
This illustrated the psychological impact of prolonged parental disputes on a vulnerable child.
3. The Inescapable Bond of Parenthood
Perhaps the most profound aspect of the ruling was the Court’s reiteration that parenthood does not dissolve with marriage:
“They may be divorced as husband and wife, but they can never be divorced as parents.”
The Court reminded both parties that parenting responsibilities continue post-divorce and must be exercised with mutual respect and coordination.
Final Directions Issued by the Court
While closing the contempt petition, the Kerala High Court issued binding directions in the spirit of equitable co-parenting:
(a) Closure of Contempt Proceedings
The Court accepted that the contempt petition was filed based on a mistaken belief and saw no wilful disobedience by the respondent. Hence, the case was closed.
(b) Active Involvement of Father
The petitioner (father) was granted full liberty to:
- Attend therapy sessions
- Monitor the child’s educational progress
- Engage in the child’s personal development
However, this involvement must be exercised without causing any discomfort, pressure, or intimidation to the child.
(c) Undertaking by the Mother
The respondent (mother), through her counsel, undertook to facilitate the above cooperation and would not create any impediment in future.
Relevance of Supporting Documentation
The judgment refers to several annexures that provide medical documentation on the child’s condition, including:
- Reports from the Child Development Centre and KIMS Health Centre
- Psychological assessments and therapy certificates from institutions in Thiruvananthapuram and Bangalore
These documents underscore the need for consistent and specialised care, reinforcing the rationale behind shared parental engagement.
Comparative Jurisprudence: Indu S. v. Thomas @ Manoj
The Court cited its earlier decision in Indu S. v. Thomas @ Manoj [2025 (3) KHC 295], which similarly recognised the child’s psychological needs in matrimonial disputes. The current case reaffirms that parental litigation must never eclipse the emotional well-being of the child.
Legal and Social Implications
This case serves as a model precedent for courts across India dealing with custody and visitation rights, especially where special children are involved. It reiterates several key principles:
- Best interests of the child override procedural rigidity.
- Parental roles are lifelong and cannot be “divorced.”
- Judicial compassion should guide enforcement in family matters.
Key Highlights of the Judgment
The Division Bench, led by Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha, delivered a nuanced and compassionate verdict.
“We have little doubt that the spar between the parents with respect to the child in question is rather unfortunate. The child requires every care that the parents can give her, without any condition and in an unqualified manner. The rights of the child are that we are concerned about, and not that of the parties. The child surely obtains right to have her parents with her when she grows up, particularly when she requires special attention and therapy.
The way out in our minds is that the parents must find peace with each other and be involved with the child’s progress together as partners. They may be divorced as husband and wife, but they can never be divorced as parents. Their responsibilities as parents will continue as long as they live, notwithstanding whether they are husband and wife”.
Limitations and Challenges
While the law supports co-parenting, practical issues persist:
- One parent may relocate or remarry, complicating joint involvement.
- Emotional wounds from the divorce may hinder communication.
- Sometimes, one parent uses the child to settle scores.
Yet, as the Kerala High Court noted, personal discomfort cannot justify violating the child’s right to both parents.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court’s ruling in Navin Scariah v. Priya Abraham exemplifies a humane approach to family law, balancing legal rights with emotional realities. It moves beyond blame and contempt to foster collaborative parenting in post-divorce scenarios. For families navigating similar terrain, this judgment is both a legal compass and a moral guidepost.