The Kerala High Court closed a contempt petition filed by a father alleging denial of access to his special-needs child, clarifying instead that he retains the right to be involved in the child’s therapy and schooling. The Court reminded both parents that while marriages may end, parental responsibilities endure, especially when a child requires special care.
Brief Facts of the Case:
Navin Scariah, the father of a special-needs child, approached the Kerala High Court alleging that his former wife, Priya Abraham, was not complying with the directions allowing him access to his child. He filed a contempt petition, believing he was being denied his rights, but later clarified through his counsel that his intention was not to seek punishment but to ensure active participation in the child’s upbringing.
Legal Provisions Involved:
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Civil Contempt)
- Guardianship and custody principles under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890
- General constitutional principles relating to the welfare of the child (Article 21)
Arguments of Petitioner and Respondent:
Petitioner (Father):
- Through his counsel, he clarified that he was acting under a mistaken belief and did not wish to press for contempt action.
- His intent was to be part of his child’s life, specifically in her therapy and educational progress, given her special needs.
Respondent (Mother):
- Asserted that she had not violated any court orders.
- Explained that the child, due to her physical and emotional condition, was not comfortable interacting with the father.
- Submitted medical records and therapy-related certificates to support her claims.
Court’s Observations:
- The Court expressed concern over the child’s visible discomfort during a meeting with her father, noting her strong attachment to her mother as both caregiver and parent.
- It highlighted the unfortunate impact of prolonged parental conflict on a vulnerable child and reiterated that the rights of the child—not the estranged parents—must take precedence.
- Emphasized that both parents, regardless of their marital status, continue to have obligations as co-parents.
Conclusion of the Judgment:
- The contempt petition was formally closed.
- The Court clarified that the father has full liberty to attend therapy sessions and monitor the child’s education, provided he does so without causing distress.
- The mother’s counsel gave an undertaking that she would cooperate with this arrangement and not create any impediments.
Comments from the author of this website
This case quietly mirrors a deeper concern—how emotionally and practically distant fathers often become from their children after separation or divorce, not by choice, but by circumstance. Even when courts lay down clear directions, the ground reality is far more complex. Fathers who genuinely wish to remain involved in their child’s life, particularly when the child has special needs, are often left navigating a system that leans heavily on the mother’s caregiving role, both legally and emotionally.
While there may be no overt defiance of court orders, the passive resistance—where the child is subtly conditioned to resist or fear the father—goes largely unaddressed. It’s a reality many fathers silently endure wanting to help, support, and love their child, but feeling helpless when every attempt is met with discomfort or rejection. There is rarely any accountability when one parent becomes the gatekeeper, and emotional alienation is normalized as the child’s “preference,” without deeper examination into its cause.
In such situations, the father’s role is often reduced to mere legal formality—granted access in theory but denied connection in reality. This case demonstrates how a man, despite his willingness to engage positively, had to resort to court not for punitive relief, but simply for the recognition of his parental identity. That emotional labour often goes unnoticed and unspoken.
Final Thoughts:
The Kerala High Court’s call for shared parenting is a step in the right direction, but real change demands more than statements of principle. The legal framework must evolve to detect and correct emotional distancing tactics that, while subtle, cause lasting harm. There needs to be a cultural and institutional shift—one that sees fathers not as backup parents or visitors, but as equal, essential caregivers whose presence, especially in a child’s developmental and therapeutic journey, is not optional but vital.
Read Complete Judgement Here