At first, the Kerala High Court appointed a separate attorney to represent a minor in a custody dispute.
Due to the fact that both parents were fighting for custody of the child, the High Court determined that there was no one to defend the child’s best interests.
A division bench composed of Justices A Muhamed Mustaque and Sophy Thomas was reviewing the petition for custody of the youngest child filed by the father (petitioner).
The petitioner was a practising attorney with three children from a previous marriage.
The father was given possession of the first two children after the family court determined that their maternal grandfather had molested both of them.
Counsel for the petitioner further argued that there were medical documents indicating that the mother molested the youngest child and that a case had been filed against her under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).
Earlier, during the hearing in another child custody case, the Project Coordinator of the Victim Rights Centre, advocate Parvathy Menon, told the Court that appointing independent counsel for children would help to protect their best interests, which would otherwise be lost in the parents’ heated disputes.
The suggestion was made because, even though custody law prioritises the “best interests” of the child, child
