This is an interim order on parenting time for specified dates; it decides nothing about the main petition in O.P. No. 544 of 2025 or about the parties' matrimonial dispute, and the application is posted for further orders on 20 November 2026.
- Case
- Dr. Jayaram v. Dr. Harini
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Decision
- Bench
- P. B. Balaji
- Case numbers
- A. No. 4422 of 2026 in O.P. No. 544 of 2025
- Outcome
- Application for interim custody allowed in part: parenting time fixed for 7, 8, 14 and 15 November 2026 with shortened hours and conditions; conditional direction for 9 November 2026; matter posted on 20 November 2026.
The order
On 5 November 2026, Justice P. B. Balaji of the Madras High Court granted the father, Dr. Jayaram, interim custody and visitation of the couple's seven-year-old son over two weekends in November, with conditions. The order was pronounced after being reserved on 3 November 2026.
The Court fixed parenting time on 7, 8, 14 and 15 November 2026, but for shorter hours than the father had asked for. It also barred any medical or psychological examination of the child during the visitation, barred the father from taking the child outside the Court's territorial jurisdiction without prior permission, and directed him to ensure his parents do not speak ill of the mother.
The parties and the case
The application, A. No. 4422 of 2026 in O.P. No. 544 of 2025, was filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The child, Jayakrishna Jayaram, aged about seven years, is studying in the second standard.
The father is resident and employed in Abu Dhabi, UAE. He was due in Chennai on 6 November 2026 and leaves India on 15 November 2026, having come mainly to spend quality time with the child, with whom he is in regular contact by video calls. The mother is also a doctor, working in a Central Government hospital, and had made special arrangements with her employer to spend time with the son at weekends.
The parties are separately contesting matrimonial proceedings for dissolution of marriage or restitution of conjugal rights, as the case may be. The order does not state the main relief sought in O.P. No. 544 of 2025. In the summer vacation, the Court had granted the father interim custody on 24 and 25 May 2026 between 10.00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m., and another Judge had permitted interim custody on 26 and 27 May 2026, with a rider that the child should not be taken for any medical or psychological examination.
What was asked for
The father sought interim custody and parenting time on 7, 8, 14 and 15 November 2026, from 10.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. on each day, with liberty to take the child out during that period and a direction to return the child to the mother's custody on the same day by 7.00 p.m. He undertook to return the child by 7.00 p.m. on each of those days.
At the hearing, his counsel also asked the Court to consider granting interim custody on 9 November 2026 as well. The order records that the Government of Tamil Nadu had declared 9 November 2026 a public holiday, but that the child's CBSE school had not yet declared it a holiday.
What the Court directed
The Court granted interim custody and visitation in the following manner. On 7 November 2026, the father is to pick up the child from the mother's residence at 10.00 a.m. and drop the child back at 5.00 p.m. On 8 November 2026, being Deepavali, he is to pick up the child at 8.00 a.m. and drop the child back by 2.00 p.m. On 14 and 15 November 2026, he is to pick up the child at 10.00 a.m. and drop the child back at 5.00 p.m. The Court did not grant the prayed-for 10.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. on any of the four days.
If 9 November 2026 is declared a holiday by the school, the father is entitled to interim custody on that day from 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m., considering that 10 November 2026 would be a regular school working day. The child is not to be taken for any medical or psychological examination during the interim custody, and the father is not to take the child outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.
The father is to ensure his parents do not speak ill of the mother, and to advise them to avoid any references to her and instead enjoy quality grand-parenting time with the grandson. The same applies equally to the father, and no attempts to create evidence for different proceedings are to be made on the father's side whatsoever. The application was ordered with these directions, and the matter was posted on 20 November 2026 for further orders.
Why the Court fixed these terms
The Court recorded that past visits had passed off smoothly and that the son was very affectionate towards the father and went with him voluntarily and willingly. The mother, in principle, agreed that the father was entitled to interim custody as in the past, but objected to 10.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. on the four days, saying only the weekends gave her quality time with the son.
The Court rejected the suggestion that only half of the weekends should go to the father. It observed that the mother has the child with her at all times except during interim custody, so that argument could not be countenanced, and that the father, coming for only two weekends, should not be deprived of a longer period when the child is comfortable with him.
On the grandparents, the mother alleged that they tried to poison the child's mind and speak ill of her, and that a video was taken at the father's Chennai residence in which the child was forced to say he wanted only the father and not the mother. The Court held that the father, who resides with his parents at K.K. Nagar, Chennai, cannot be asked not to take the child to that residence, and that restrictions on the grandparents interacting with the grandson are not practically possible. But it added that it is not in the child's welfare to be influenced by unnecessary comments about the mother, and that any attempt to create evidence for the matrimonial dispute during visitation cannot be acceptable evidence before the matrimonial Court.
More generally, the Court observed that the innocent child's mind should not be poisoned or prejudiced, either way, by the spouses or their relatives, and that the parties' personal differences should not be allowed to affect the child's interest. The child needs both the father and the mother. The order also records a submission that on an earlier occasion the father, without the Court's prior consent or informing the mother, took the child outside the jurisdiction of the Court, and that safeguards were needed.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
This order is a study in how courts decide interim custody: the welfare of the child is the controlling consideration. The Court did not treat the father's visit as a right to be exercised in full, nor the mother's objections as a veto; it weighed the child's comfort with the father, the father's short visit from abroad, and the mother's weekend time with the child, and fixed hours shorter than those prayed for.
Two features deserve attention. First, the conditions are safeguards, not punishments: the bar on medical examinations, the territorial limit, and the direction about the grandparents all protect the child from being drawn into the matrimonial dispute. Second, the Court's observation that evidence created during visitation cannot be acceptable evidence before the matrimonial Court shows how interim orders police the boundary between parenting time and litigation strategy. An interim custody order decides only the arrangements for the dates before the Court; the main petition and the matrimonial proceedings remain undecided.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- On what principle did the Court decide the father's application for interim custody, and how did it apply that principle to the hours of parenting time?
- Why did the Court reject the suggestion that only half of the weekends should go to the father, and what did it say about the grandparents' interaction with the child?
- What conditions did the Court impose on the interim custody, and what did it say about attempts to create evidence for the matrimonial proceedings during visitation?
