Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1399 (KER)

Jayalakshmi V v. Adarsh Parthan

2025-05-23

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, M.B.SNEHALATHA

body2025
JUDGMENT : DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. The petitioner expresses deep anguish in the learned Family Court, North Paravur, having confined the financial assistance ordered to be given to her autistic child by the respondent –his father, to a mere Rs.10,000/- per month. 2. Sri.Litto Varghese Palathingal –learned counsel for the petitioner, explained that the child is suffering from speech and behavioral issues; and has been subjected to necessary therapy for the last several years, which may have to continue for life or at least for the next decade or so; and hence that it is impossible for his client to suffer the huge costs for this, without support. He explained that the child was initially offered therapy at the National Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (NIPMR), which is a Government institution; and that, after he showed considerable progress there, he was shifted home, to attend school nearby and to continue therapy - initially with “Jivadhara Institute of Neuro Development and Research” at Kalady and presently under Dr.Nimmy Joseph, who is consulting at “Najeeb’s Child Care” which is also near home. He further explained that the child requires a full time specialised assistant who will require to be paid a minimum of Rs.30,000/- to 35,000/- per month; and that, along with this, the cost of therapy and other attended expenses would escalate the expenses to as high as Rs.75,000/- to 80,000/- per month. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be interfered with and the amount ordered by the learned Family Court be enhanced to a minimum of Rs.1,50,000/- per month. 3. As luculent from the earlier interim orders issued in this case, the respondent – father has taken the position that he will be willing to pay all amounts required to the child, provided he is given necessary and specialised care at the “NIPMR”. Sri.Jimmy George – learned counsel for the respondent, argued that, since the child has now been kept at home by the petitioner and offered therapy in a Centre which does not have any expertise or the necessary credentials, his client will not accede to the afore requested payment. He reiteratingly insisted that the child be shifted back to the “NIPMR”; and noticing this, we requisitioned the help of the Psychiatrist of the General Hospital, Ernakulam, to assist us, after assessing the child’s condition. This was done through the order dated 21.02.2025. 4. He reiteratingly insisted that the child be shifted back to the “NIPMR”; and noticing this, we requisitioned the help of the Psychiatrist of the General Hospital, Ernakulam, to assist us, after assessing the child’s condition. This was done through the order dated 21.02.2025. 4. The Psychiatrist thereafter made available a report, affirming that the child requires specialised therapy and informed us that both sides - meaning the parents - have agreed that the same can be continued at the “NIPMR”. 5. Thereafter, we considered this matter on 14.03.2025 and passed an order, which is self explanatory and hence extracted below: “Read order dated 21.02.2025. 2. The Psychiatrist of the General Hospital, Ernakulam, has made available his opinion wherein he has suggested that the child be given assistance from a recognized centre. 3. Sri.Litto Varghese Palathingal says that his client, namely the mother of the child, had consulted the National Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (NIPMR) in Thrissur, which is now suggested by the respondent –father and that it is at their recommendation that the treatment / rehabilitation of the child is going on. He asserted that the present centre is capable of taking care of the child. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent – father of the child, however, submitted that his client insists that his son be treated only at a recognized centre, the best of which is the NIPMR. 5. This presents rather piquant situation because the parents does not seem to see eye to eye on the manner in which the child requires treatment / assistance / rehabilitation. The question whether the institution where the child is presently being given assistance is sufficient for his needs is not something that we can evaluate without further evaluation. 6. We, believe, therefore, that this is a fit case where the assistance of Child Legal Assistance Programme (CLAP) of this Court would come into play. 7. We, thus appoint Smt.Bindhu Bhaskaran and Smt. G.Vidhya under the afore programme to represent the child's interests; and request them to visit him and file a report before us by the next posting date. List for further consideration on 20.03.2025.” 6. 7. We, thus appoint Smt.Bindhu Bhaskaran and Smt. G.Vidhya under the afore programme to represent the child's interests; and request them to visit him and file a report before us by the next posting date. List for further consideration on 20.03.2025.” 6. Smt.Bindu Bhaskaran and Smt.G.Vidya – representing the “CLAP”, subsequently informed us that they had met the child, to find that he has made considerable improvement and has attained appreciable milestones in his life; and further that it will be the best for him that he is allowed to continue therapy at home, with the assistance of the best experts, so that he can then remain in School without any disruption. They told us that the child has great bonding with his mother and elder sister; and that if he is to be uprooted from their company, - solely as insisted by the father - everything that has been achieved until now, would be set at naught. 7. Incredulously, the petitioner still insisted that the child be removed from home and admitted at “NIPMR”; and hence, to find out his true intent, we asked him to file an affidavit that he will take a rented house next to “NIPMR” and remain therewith the child for a minimum period of 60 days. The respondent subsequently filed an affidavit to the said effect, thus establishing that he is adamant that the child be treated at “NIPMR” and nowhere else, but without offering any explanation as to why he continues such a strong stand. 8. However, on 22.05.2025, Smt.Bindu Bhaskaran and Smt.G.Vidya took objection to the offer of the father to take the child away from home and to be admitted at the “NIPMR”, reiterating that if this is done, the child would loose everything that has already been achieved. They then informed us that, in fact, the same doctor who treated and took care of the child at the “NIPMR”, namely Dr.Nimmy Joseph, is still taking care of him, since she is now consulting in a clinic very close to his residence. 9. Hearing as afore, we passed an order on 22.05.2025, which requires full reading and hence reproduced below: “As evident from the earlier orders, the respondent – father of the child takes the stand that he will finance the latter’s treatment only if he is admitted at the National Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (NIPMR), Irinjalakuda. 9. Hearing as afore, we passed an order on 22.05.2025, which requires full reading and hence reproduced below: “As evident from the earlier orders, the respondent – father of the child takes the stand that he will finance the latter’s treatment only if he is admitted at the National Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (NIPMR), Irinjalakuda. He has also filed an affidavit in response to our order dated 20.05.2025, to the effect that he has taken a house on rent near the said Facility and that he will remain with the child for a minimum period of 60 days. 2. However, Smt.Vidya, assisting the child as part of the “CLAP”, submits that the shifting of the child to Irinjalakuda in the manner now insisted by the father would be deleterious to him because, he requires the company of his mother and sister. She explained that the child has achieved great milestones and is far better than earlier; and that now removing him from their company, to be with the father for a long duration would perhaps redo anything that has been obtained in the past. She then added that the respondent – father seems to be acting without proper thought because, the same doctor who is at NIPMR, is now treating the child at Kalady. 3. It is needless to say that our resolve is to find the best of the child. If the father is using excuses to shy away from his responsibility, this Court will certainly do what is necessary. However, before we take any such a view, affirmatively, we believe it is necessary that we call the doctor concerned, namely Dr.Nimmy Joseph. Smt.Mary Beena Joseph – learned Senior Government Pleader, offered that Dr.Nimmy Joseph will appear before us at 10.15 AM on 23.05.2025. Post, therefore, on 23.05.2025.” 10. Today, Dr. Nimmy Joseph appeared before us personally and explained that she is a Developmental Pediatrician, working with the “NIPMR”. She informed us that she is also consulting in the evenings at “Najeeb’s Child Care”, which is very close to the residence of the child and affirmed that he has improved vastly over the years, primarily because he is under the care and loving company of his mother and sister and since he is attending school regularly. She re-emphasised that the child should continue school and lead a normal life, supplementing it with therapy as is required. She re-emphasised that the child should continue school and lead a normal life, supplementing it with therapy as is required. She also told us that the parents have contacted her and that she has no objection to the father being fully involved in the therapy of the child and that she will give him every access to the medical and other inputs as may be necessary. 11. Dr.Nimmy Joseph, thereafter, told us that the child requires occupational, speech and behavioral therapy, perhaps for life, but certainly for the next 10 years or so, until he attains the age of 18-20; and that he has acquired all the skills that can be given to him by the “NIPMR”, thus making it now unnecessary for him to be admitted there any further. She assured us that she will be in a position to take care of the child and provide him requisite support for his future life; and reiterated that this can be done by any Developmental Pediatrician with good credentials. 12. The scenario is now, therefore, very clear. 13. The child is doing well and there is no case contrary to this even for the father. His anxiety – which we take to be bonafide – is that the child is not getting the best and that this may be available only at the “NIPMR”. In an abstract sense, perhaps the father is justified in thinking so, but there are certain events that have already taken place, namely that the child was under the care of “NIPMR” for considerable time; and Dr.Nimmy Joseph, as we have recorded above, informs us that the child has acquired all the skills that can be given by the said centre. Obviously, what is required now is to continue the therapy – occupational, speech and behavioral – on a regular basis, which would not require admission or stay at the “NIPMR”. 14. Further, if the child is to be removed from his residential atmosphere and taken away from the company of his mother and sister, solely to be admitted to the “NIPMR”, it may create deleterious consequences, rather than give him any benefit. We do not understand why this should be insisted upon by his father, but we assume that he only wants best for his child. We do not understand why this should be insisted upon by his father, but we assume that he only wants best for his child. If that be so, the explanation of Dr.Nimmy Joseph would surely allay all apprehensions of the father; and we are left without doubt that the child should be allowed to continue at home, with necessary support from the Developmental Pediatrician - be that Dr.Nimmy Joseph, or anyone else in future - so that his therapy for occupational, speech and behavioral requirements continue within the comforting atmosphere of family and school. 15. We thus come back to the impugned order; and we are called upon to assess whether the amount fixed by the learned Family Court is requisite. 16. Dr.Nimmy Joseph informed us that the child would require a minimum of three days of therapy every week and that each such session would, as of today, cost a minimum of Rs.1,500/-each. 17. Taking that figure, the minimum pecuniary requirement for a week for therapy alone would be Rs.4,500/- and this would translate into Rs.18,000/- per month. The child requires a specialized attendant, which is not opposed by any of the parties; and by a conservative estimate, it would not be imprudent for us to accept the mother’s quoted figure of Rs.30,000/- per month. The child will require food and all other unexpendables; and by a safe estimate, based on the todays standards, this would cost a minimum of Rs.15,000/- per month. 18. The sum total of the afore would be Rs.63,000/-; and we are of the firm view that the order of the learned Family Court will require to be modified to a sum, of Rs.60,000/-, to be honoured by the respondent – father. We fix this sum for now since the father has offered to shoulder any amount on condition that the child obtains the best treatment. Therefore, should there be a requirement in future for a higher sum, the mother is reserved liberty to seek it from the father; and should he not agree to it, then to move the learned Family Court appropriately. In the afore circumstances, we allow this Original Petition and modify Ext.P10 order of the learned Family Court, directing the respondent – father to pay Rs.60,000/- henceforth, namely from this month, by deposit of the said amount into account No.54230 20100 12394, in the name of V.Jayalakshmi. In the afore circumstances, we allow this Original Petition and modify Ext.P10 order of the learned Family Court, directing the respondent – father to pay Rs.60,000/- henceforth, namely from this month, by deposit of the said amount into account No.54230 20100 12394, in the name of V.Jayalakshmi. We clarify that we have not treated this matter as being an adversarial litigation, and that our directions are solely to the benefit of the child. We do hope that the parents act together for his better future and his therapy. In such perspective, we allow the father to be fully involved with the therapy sessions and to contact the Developmental Pediatrician, or the clinic where the child is now being treated, for any genuine cause; and we record the offer of Dr.Nimmy Joseph that this can be done, subject to her convenience and without causing any disruption. We place on record our unstinted appreciation for Smt.Bindu Bhaskaran and G.Vidya, but for their assistance, without which, this Court would not have been in a position to decide this case with the ease that became finally available to us. Their involvement certainly shows the importance of initiatives of this Court like the “CLAP”; and we are certain that this will go a long way forward in ensuring succor in other deserving cases also.