Kerala High Court slams family court for denying custody of kids to mother over revealing clothes, dating app profile

The Kerala High Court recently took a very dim view of a family court's decision to grant custody of a child to the father on the ground that the mother was unworthy of taking care of her children as she was a person of loose morals, used to wearing “revealing dresses”, posting her pictures on dating apps and spending time with male friends..The family court had made the observations regarding loose morals and revealing clothes based on the screenshots from the woman's account on the dating app, Bumble. However, a Division Bench of Justices Devan Ramachandran and MB Snehalatha of the High Court noted that she was dressed in a very modest manner. Moreover, the High Court noted that the family court failed to consider the woman's allegation that it was the husband who had created the profile of the woman on the app and uploaded images that he had of her.The High Court also derided the family court for stating that the woman must always feel sad on getting divorced. The High Court opined that this too exposed misogynistic prejudices and reinforced a stereotype that women ought to be subdued, servile and submissive."We cannot, in any manner - even in wildest latitude - offer approval to any such gender statement; and this is more so in this case, because it is the appellant who filed for divorce and obtained it, surely making for her feel elated, thus to celebrate with a close group of friends. ...We denounce these impressions and expressions as being wholly contrary to our constitutional conscience, particularly in the 21st century, when every woman marches on, with her head high, with her goals set and her resolve strong to attain it against all odds. The notion, that a women should be happy only with marriage and should feel sad on being divorced is, in our view, so ineffable that it requires no further expatiation," the Court said.It opined that the family court viewed the material given to it "from the angle of unnecessary sexism" and underscored that courts must refrain from moral policing based on personal assessments. "It is unpardonable and impermissible in any civilized society to judge a woman solely on the basis of her dress, or to thus conclude upon her virtue or her modesty, which surely can only be construed as being clothed by rigid notions of patriarchy. The sartorial preferences that a women makes, is that of her own choice, which cannot be subjected to moral policing or assessment, particularly by Courts," the High Court said. .The Court made these observations while considering a case where a divorced couple were fighting for the custody of their children. While the man alleged that his ex-wife had loose morals, the woman called him a narcissist and a sexual pervert.The family court passed an order granting custody of the children to the father on the ground that the mother was a woman of loose morals who used to wear revealing clothes and spend time with her male friends, and who was also prone to verbally abusing her husband.The family court also concluded that she had engaged the services of a hacker to access the husband's computer.The woman subsequently moved the High Court challenging the family court's order and seeking custody of the children..The High Court said that such cases highlight how rigid gender roles and patriarchy have trickled down into our society and guides our thoughts and actions."In the heteronormative context, being feminine is construed as synonymous to being modest and even submissive; or, rather, that is how this term is more than often interpreted. Consciously or subconsciously, societies impose restrictions on women’s autonomy and scrutinize their choices," the Court observed..Unwritten dress codes impact women throughout their lives.Kerala High Court.Such policing of women's clothing choices, which often begin when they are children, impact them in a myriad ways, the Court said. "Unfortunately, through time, unwritten dress codes impact women throughout their lives. The sexualization and policing of women’s clothes, even from early school days, become active barriers to self-actualization and a full life," the Court said. .The High Court also found many other loopholes in the family court's reasoning and therefore, set aside its order. After interacting with both children, the Court deemed it fit to grant their custody to the mother. The Court added that it was denouncing the family court's remarks against the woman-appellant. "We are enjoined to do so because courts cannot be suspected to be guilty of even borderline misogynism or sexism; and our constitutional mandate is that we decide matters as per its conscience and within its overriding umbra," the judgment stated. .However, the High Court clarified that it is open for the father to move the family court for interim custody. The Court also ordered that the father be allowed to interact with the children over phone or video call..Courts cannot be suspected to be guilty of even borderline misogynism or sexism.Kerala High Court.The mother was represented by advocates Jagan Abraham M George and Jaison Antony. The father was represented by Senior Advocate S Sreekumar and advocate George Varghese (Perumpallikuttiyil)..[Read Judgment]