Kerala HC Grants Interim Custody to Mother After Unidentified Lawyer Approaches Child in Court Hall, Disturbing Six-Year-Old During Proceedings
A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court granted interim custody to a mother after an unidentified lawyer entered the court hall and told her six-year-old son that his father was waiting, visibly traumatising the child and derailing a planned in-chambers interaction with the judges.
On 5 June 2026, a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam — comprising Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen — granted interim custody of a six-year-old boy to his mother, Sreedhanya Bhaskaran, after an unidentified lawyer entered the court hall during the hearing and conveyed a message to the child that his father was waiting downstairs. The incident caused visible emotional distress to the child, made the planned in-chambers interaction impossible, and prompted the bench to direct the Registry to identify the lawyer with the assistance of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association and the Bar Council of Kerala. The bench also expressed displeasure at the respondent-father's counsel for failing to advise and restrain the client, and appointed a Child Legal Assistance Programme lawyer to interact with the child and submit a report.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The case arises from a matrimonial dispute between Sreedhanya Bhaskaran and Balakrishnan V.S., which is pending before the Family Court, Kozhikode. The mother filed OP (FC) No. 170 of 2026 before the Kerala High Court challenging Ext.P1, an interim custody order passed by the Family Court on 9 December 2025 in I.A. No. 6/2025 in O.P. No. 502/2025.
Under the Family Court's interim arrangement, the child was to remain primarily with the father. The mother was entitled to custody during all vacations, including summer vacation, with the child to be brought to Kozhikode by the father on the first day of vacation and returned two days before the vacation ended. During summer vacation, the father could take the child back two weeks before the school reopened. On days when the father had custody, the mother could interact with the child by video call every Wednesday and during weekends and public holidays in Chennai between 7 pm and 7.30 pm.
The mother's petition before the High Court sought a direction to produce the child and grant her interim custody pending disposal of the petition.
A Troubled Procedural History
The case had a difficult run-up to the 5 June 2026 hearing. On 16 March 2026, the bench directed both parties to appear with the child on 31 March 2026. On that date, the mother appeared but the father was absent and the child was not produced. The matter was adjourned to 7 April 2026 with a direction to the father to produce the child.
On 1 April 2026, the father appeared with the child. The mother, who was in Ernakulam that day, reached the court after being informed through counsel. The bench interacted with both parties and the child, and declined to disturb the Family Court's custody arrangement at that stage because the father submitted that the school academic year was not yet over and the school would close only on 27 April 2026.
The bench directed the father to strictly comply with Ext.P1, to send the examination timetable and vacation details to the mother within two days, and to file the school closing and reopening dates before the court. The Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Kozhikode was directed to be present at the time of handing over the child to the mother and to seek police assistance if necessary. The Registry was directed to send the order and a copy of the petition to the DLSA Secretary forthwith.
Despite these directions, handing over the child to the mother required considerable effort by the DLSA Secretary. Custody was eventually given to the mother on 7 April 2026. The father thereafter filed a petition before the vacation court seeking modification of the interim orders of 1 April 2026 and 7 April 2026; the court declined to modify them.
On 22 May 2026, it was reported to the court that the child was staying happily with the mother. The matter was posted to 4 June 2026 and then to 5 June 2026, with a direction to the mother to produce the child. The bench specifically ordered that the father need not appear on 5 June 2026, as it wanted to interact with the child freely, without the presence of either parent.
What Happened in the Court Hall on 5 June 2026
When the case was called on the morning of 5 June 2026, the bench directed the parties to appear in chambers after the completion of the list. The bench came down to chambers at about 11.45 am to interact with the child alone.
When the child was called into chambers, he was hesitant to enter alone. He stood with the mother, clutching her hand tightly. The bench noted that the child had appeared energetic and happy in the court hall that morning. However, when the mother was asked to leave the chambers, the child held her hand tightly, refused to let her go, and appeared visibly distressed.
The mother hesitantly told the bench that something untoward had happened in the court hall. Adv. Merin Jose, a junior lawyer in the office of Adv. Nirmal S. (counsel for the petitioner), then came to the chambers and informed the bench that while the mother and child were sitting in the last row of the court hall, an unidentified male lawyer had walked up to the child and said, in Malayalam: “മനവല്ലേ? അച്ഛൻ താഴെ wait ചെയ്യുന്നണ്” — translated as “Are you not Manu, father is waiting down.” When Adv. Merin Jose questioned him, the lawyer left without answering, walked out of the court hall, and took the escalator to the second floor.
After this incident, the child, who had been comfortable with the mother, became disturbed and frightened. The bench was unable to conduct the planned interaction. The child continued to hold the mother's hand and would not let go. The bench directed the mother to take the child and leave the court premises.
The bench subsequently reviewed the Vconsol video conferencing recording of the court hall and the CCTV footage of the court corridor. It confirmed that an unidentified lawyer had entered the court hall, spoken to the child in the last row, and immediately left, rushing through the corridor and taking the escalator to the second floor. Adv. Merin Jose was also seen leaving the court hall in search of the unidentified lawyer.
Security personnel informed the bench that the respondent-father had been present in the court premises that morning and was waiting in the facilitation centre, but had been denied permission to enter the court building.
The Bench's Assessment of the Lawyer's Conduct
Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen, writing the order, was unsparing in her assessment. The bench observed that the message was conveyed to the child “with ulterior motives,” particularly given that there had been a specific direction exempting the father from personal appearance that day. The bench expressed displeasure at the respondent's counsel for failing to advise and restrain the client.
The bench set out the obligations of a lawyer as an officer of the court: a lawyer's duty extends beyond the client to the court, to the administration of justice, and to society at large. A lawyer must uphold the Constitution of India, assist in the dispensation of justice, and ensure that legal expertise is not used to perpetuate illegality or injustice. The bench stated that but for the incident, the child would have remained comfortable and the court could have interacted with him to arrive at a proper conclusion.
The bench stated that the interim order was being reported to remind members of the Bar of the oath taken on the day of enrolment — to bear true faith and allegiance and to maintain the respect due to courts by upholding the ethical duties and moral values of the profession.
Earlier Observations on the Child's Comfort with the Mother
The bench referred to Ext.P13, a judgment of this Court in an earlier OP (FC) No. 612 of 2025 filed by the mother for custody. In paragraph 15 of that judgment, the court had observed that the child was comfortable with the mother and that they were playing together during an extended in-chambers interaction, but that the child became apprehensive and withdrew from the mother the moment the father was invited into the chambers. The bench drew on this earlier observation as part of the context for its assessment of the child's welfare.
Order and Directions
Having regard to the psychological trauma and distress caused to the child by the incident in the court hall, the bench granted interim custody of the child to the mother for the time being.
The bench appointed Adv. Tanuja Roshan, Child Support Lawyer under the Child Legal Assistance Programme (CLAP) of the Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KeLSA), to interact with the child and, if possible, with the parents, and to submit a report to the court. The Registry was directed to show Adv. Tanuja Roshan's name in the cause list and to serve copies of the original petition and all orders on the CLAP lawyer.
The Registry was directed to store and preserve the Vconsol recording of the proceedings in Court-1C on the first floor and the CCTV footage of the court hall corridor from 5 June 2026. The Registry was further directed to trace the male lawyer who had unauthorisedly approached the child and to report to the court immediately. For this purpose, the Registry was directed to seek the assistance of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association, the Bar Council of Kerala, or any other organisation to identify the lawyer.
Since both sides expressed willingness to settle the dispute, the petitioner and the respondent were directed to appear before the Mediation Centre attached to the High Court on 15 June 2026 at 10.15 am. Adv. Sally Thomas Chacko, Senior Mediator, was appointed as the mediator.
The matter was posted to 19 June 2026.