The Kerala High Court ruled that estoppel does not prevent a party from challenging an erroneous court order, emphasizing the court’s duty to correct its mistakes for justice, especially in child custody cases. The court reviewed a custody arrangement between parents, prioritizing the child’s welfare and allowing for modifications based on changing circumstances.
Kerala: The Kerala High Court recently emphasized that “there is no question of estoppel against a party where an error is committed by the court itself,” even if the party had previously benefited from the erroneous order. The observation was made by a Bench of Justices PB Suresh Kumar and C Pratheep Kumar while recalling an earlier order in a child custody case.
The Court had initially granted interim custody of a child to the father, with the provision that the mother could file for custody later if she secured employment in Canada. However, the father filed a revision petition, challenging the order for failing to address critical issues.
The mother opposed the father’s challenge, arguing that since he had already benefited by obtaining custody of the child, the principle of estoppel barred him from questioning the order. Her counsel maintained that the father could not modify a judgment after acting on it.
The Court disagreed, noting that the principle of estoppel, though ensuring equity, cannot override “principles of what is right and of good conscience.” The Bench highlighted that “the court is under a bounden duty to correct its own mistake,” particularly in cases involving the welfare of children.
The child custody dispute originated in a family court in Thrissur, where the mother was granted permanent custody, and the father received visitation rights. After the mother remarried and moved to Canada, the father sought to alter the custody arrangement, requesting permanent custody to take the child to Dubai.
Both parents then approached the High Court, where a common order allowed the father to immediately take the child to Dubai but stipulated that custody could revert to the mother once she secured employment in Canada. This prompted the father’s review petition, citing concerns about the order’s conditional nature.
Acknowledging errors in its earlier decision, the Court recalled the order and posted the matter for fresh consideration. It reiterated that custody arrangements could be varied if circumstances changed, ensuring fairness and prioritizing the child’s welfare.
The petitioner (father) was represented by Senior Counsel Dhanya P Ashokan, while Advocates Praveen K Joy and ES Saneej appeared for the respondent (mother).
This ruling reaffirms the Court’s commitment to correcting its mistakes to uphold justice, particularly in sensitive cases like child custody.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES