Kerala High Court criticised an unidentified lawyer for approaching a six-year-old in a custody dispute and misleading the child about the father waiting outside the courtroom. Court said lawyers must uphold Constitution, justice, and Rule of Law always.
The Kerala High Court strongly criticized the conduct of an unidentified lawyer who allegedly approached a six-year-old child involved in an ongoing custody dispute and conveyed a message that the child’s father was waiting outside the courtroom.
The Court observed that the incident caused emotional distress to the child and interfered with its efforts to assess the child’s welfare independently.
The case came before a Division Bench comprising Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen in a custody dispute between estranged parents.
The mother had challenged an interim custody order passed by the Family Court, Kozhikode.
The High Court noted that the matter concerns a six-year-old boy who has been caught in the middle of a bitter matrimonial dispute between his parents. Earlier proceedings showed that the Family Court had granted custody of the child to the father while allowing the mother visitation and vacation custody rights.
During earlier hearings, the High Court had directed the father to produce the child before the Court. The father initially failed to comply with the direction, resulting in further proceedings. Eventually, the child was produced before the Court and custody arrangements were monitored closely by the Bench.
The Court recorded that the custody of the child was later handed over to the mother with the assistance of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Kozhikode. According to submissions made before the Court, the child had been staying happily with the mother thereafter.
However, when the matter was taken up on June 5, 2026, the Bench wanted to interact with the child independently to understand his thoughts and emotional condition without either parent influencing him. The Court specifically exempted the father from appearing in person on that day.
The Bench observed that the child initially appeared energetic and happy. However, shortly before the interaction, an unexpected incident occurred inside the courtroom.
According to the Court, a junior lawyer informed the Bench that an unidentified lawyer approached the child and said in Malayalam, “മനുവല്ലേ? അച്ഛൻ താഴെ wait ചെയ്യുന്നുണ്ട്,” which translates to, “Are you not Manu, father is waiting down.”
The Court noted that immediately after the incident, the child became frightened and emotionally disturbed. When the judges attempted to interact with him privately, he refused to leave his mother’s side and tightly held her hand.
Recording its concern, the Court observed,
“The message that the father was present and waiting was conveyed to the child with ulterior motives.”
The Bench further stated that because of the child’s visible emotional distress and fear, it could not conduct the interaction it had intended.
The Court said,
“The profession demands a commitment to the public good. But for the said incident, the child would have remained comfortable, and we could have interacted with him to arrive at a proper conclusion. This interim order is being reported to remind the members of the Bar, 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,”
After examining the Video Conferencing platform recordings and CCTV footage, the Court said it was satisfied that an unidentified lawyer had indeed entered the courtroom, spoken to the child and then quickly left the area.
The Court expressed serious displeasure over the incident and remarked,
“The lawyer, who unauthorisedly approached the child in the court hall and showed the courage to convey the message to the child about the arrival of the father, has done great injustice to the court as well as to the minor child.”
The Bench emphasized that lawyers owe duties not only to their clients but also to the court and the administration of justice.
Stressing the ethical responsibilities of advocates, the Court observed,
“A lawyer’s duty extends beyond the client to the court, to the administration of justice and to the society at large. As an officer of the court and a guardian of the Rule of Law, a lawyer must uphold the constitution of India, assist in the dispensation of justice and ensure that legal expertise is not employed to perpetuate illegality or injustice.”
The Court further noted that the incident prevented it from properly evaluating the wishes and emotional condition of the child. According to the Bench, had the incident not occurred, the child would likely have remained comfortable and the Court could have interacted with him meaningfully.
The order also referred to an earlier judgment in which the High Court had observed that the child appeared comfortable with the mother but became apprehensive when the father entered the room.
Taking into account the psychological trauma and discomfort caused to the child, the Court decided that interim custody should continue with the mother for the time being.
To safeguard the interests of the child, the Court appointed Adv. Thanuja Roshan, Child Support Lawyer under the Child Legal Assistance Program (CLAP), to interact with the child and, if possible, with both parents and submit a report.
The Registry was directed to preserve the video recordings of the proceedings and the CCTV footage from outside the courtroom. The Court also ordered steps to identify the lawyer who approached the child and directed the Registry to seek assistance from the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association, the Bar Council of Kerala and other organizations for that purpose.
Since both parents expressed willingness to resolve the dispute, the Court referred the matter to mediation before the High Court Mediation Centre. Senior Mediator Adv. Sally Thomas Chacko was appointed to facilitate the process.
The matter is scheduled to be taken up again on June 19, 2026.
Case Title: XXX v YYY