IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT

ERNAKULAM
REVIEW PETITION IN OP (FC) NO. 386 OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF: Steaphen Antony Venansious & Others ...Review
Petitioners VERSUS Divya Jose & Others ...Respondents

REVIEW PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

READ WITH SECTION 114 AND ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, 1908

TO THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE

HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE REVIEW PETITIONERS ABOVE NAMED MOST

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The present Review Petition arises from the final order dated
05/07/2023 passed in O.P. (FC) No. 386/2023 by this Hon’ble Court,
wherein the petitioner’s plea for an independent psychiatric evaluation
of Respondent No.1 (Ms. Divya Jose) and the appointment of a
guardian under legal provisions was summarily dismissed.

The Hon’ble Court, in disposing of the petition, recorded the following:

"Today, parties are present. We interacted with both of them.
Absolutely there is no mental element, as of now, which would
incapacitate her to defend the case before the court. Even if she is
having illness or suffering from diseases, that cannot be a reason to
appoint a guardian when she is competent to defend herself."

With utmost respect, the petitioner submits that this finding is based
on a fundamental legal and medical misapprehension of the nature of
paranoid schizophrenia and the clinical characteristics that
distinguish it from other continuously evident psychiatric disorders.
Unlike conditions that present with persistent cognitive disorganization
or visible disorientation, paranoid schizophrenia is well-documented
in the DSM-5 and leading psychiatric literature as a fluctuating
disorder, often characterized by periods of apparent normalcy (lucid
intervals) punctuated by unpredictable psychotic relapses,
including delusions of persecution, hallucinations, homicidal
ideation, and impaired reality testing.

It is respectfully submitted that a brief, courtroom-based

interaction—especially under the structured and non-stimulating
environment of a legal proceeding—is clinically insufficient to rule
out paranoid schizophrenia or to assess the respondent’s fitness as
a sole caregiver of a vulnerable minor. The episodic nature of this
disorder means that an individual may present as coherent or
functional in controlled environments, while still posing significant risk
during periods of manic or psychotic escalation.

The respondent’s mental condition is not hypothetical. The petitioner

possesses credible and corroborated evidence—including prior
psychiatric documentation, WhatsApp messages, photographic
evidence, and video recordings—demonstrating repeated manic
episodes, homicidal threats, attempted strangulation, and
filicidal ideation, all symptomatic of untreated schizophrenia. These
were not permitted to be placed on record during the original hearing,
thereby depriving this Hon’ble Court of vital information.

It must be emphasized that the legal test of competence to

defend oneself in court (a procedural threshold) is not equivalent
to the standard of mental fitness required for exclusive
custody of a minor (a substantive and welfare-based threshold). By
treating the courtroom behavior of the respondent as determinative of
her long-term parental capacity, the Hon’ble Court conflated two
separate legal standards, inadvertently compromising the rights and
safety of the child.

Moreover, legal precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gaurav

Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2009) 1 SCC 42 and Nil Ratan
Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu (2008) 9 SCC 413 underscore the
overriding principle that the best interest and welfare of the child
are the cornerstone of custody determinations. These judgments
caution that any factor—especially mental instability of a parent
—that could adversely affect the child’s psychological
development must be rigorously scrutinized and not casually
dismissed.
 The failure to order a formal psychiatric evaluation in this case—
despite prima facie evidence of dangerous conduct and a well-
documented mental health history—constitutes a material legal
error and a breach of the “paramount welfare of the child” doctrine.
This oversight has placed the minor child in imminent danger, both
physically and psychologically, and has opened the door to long-term
cognitive and emotional harm.

In light of the foregoing, the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble
Court recognize the unique clinical characteristics of paranoid
schizophrenia, differentiate between legal competence and custodial
fitness, and allow for a full psychiatric evaluation under the supervision
of a qualified medical board, as mandated under the Mental Healthcare
Act, 2017.

2 . The petitioner respectfully submits that the delay in filing this Review
Petition is not due to any negligence or lack of interest but stems from
sustained procedural obstacles and the extraordinary burden imposed
upon him throughout the course of the litigation. The impugned
judgment was issued in the context of I.A. No. 5/2022, which pertained
only to the appointment of a guardian for the respondent. The
petitioner, however, has consistently remained focused on his principal
plea concerning the permanent custody and welfare of his minor son.

From the outset, the petitioner has been compelled to expend

considerable time, energy, and financial resources in responding to a
series of transfer petitions filed by the respondent. These petitions
resulted in the matter being transferred multiple times—from the
Hon’ble Family Court, Pala (GOP No. 100591/2022), to the Hon’ble
Family Court, Alappuzha (GOP No. 100733/2023), and now to the
Hon’ble Family Court, Irinjalakuda (GOP No. 401800/2022). Each
transfer delayed substantive hearing on merit and further drained the
petitioner’s capacity to effectively pursue his central claim.

In addition to attending these proceedings across various districts in

Kerala—despite being a permanent resident of Bangalore—the
petitioner was forced to defend against multiple transfer petitions filed
before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. These required his regular
presence and preparation, and were ultimately adjudicated in his
favour, upholding the integrity of the original petition. Following this,
 several police complaints and private complaints were maliciously filed
against the petitioner. However, after thorough investigation, all such
complaints have been discharged or closed, further validating the
petitioner’s bona fides.

Despite his genuine efforts to secure the welfare of his son, the
petitioner has been subjected to judicial harassment through forum-
shopping tactics aimed at obstructing justice and concealing the
respondent's severe and untreated mental illness. The respondent and
her family appear driven by a false sense of prestige and an
unwillingness to confront the stigma of mental health conditions,
thereby abusing the judicial process to their advantage.

Meanwhile, the respondent has repeatedly failed to appear in court, as

reflected in the case diary of the Hon’ble Family Court, Pala. The
petitioner, in contrast, has been forced to appear across courts nearly
every week, under immense personal and professional strain.

The consequence of the impugned judgment—rendered without a

comprehensive psychiatric evaluation—has placed the minor child at
significant risk. It has immediate and irreversible implications for the
child’s cognitive development, emotional safety, and long-term future.
The petitioner therefore humbly urges this Hon’ble Court to condone
the delay and consider the present Review Petition on its merits, in the
paramount interest of justice and the child’s well-being.

The Review Petition is being filed now—approximately 325 days after

the judgment dated 05/07/2023—because the full extent of harm
caused by the High Court’s observation only became clear when, on
07/08/2024, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 2/2024 in O.P. No. 1800/2022
seeking psychiatric evaluation of the respondent. Despite the
completion of trial proceedings and ongoing threats to the welfare of
the child, the learned Family Court Judge in Irinjalakuda has noted that
the judgment of this Hon’ble Court——constitutes a legal and
procedural impediment to taking urgent steps for the protection and
cognitive development of the minor

3. The Petitioners submit that this observation reflects a serious factual

and legal error. Most importantly, the judgment was passed without
 affording the petitioner any opportunity to present his objections or
evidence, which is a grave violation of the principles of natural justice.
The petitioner was never heard, never allowed to submit digital
evidence, certified documents, or medical records. The Hon’ble Court
rendered a final judgment without ensuring procedural fairness or
permitting due adjudication on merits.
4. The judgment, with respect, effectively bypasses the judicial process
and renders an assessment akin to that of a medical professional,
without expert consultation, examination of clinical history, or reliance
on medical documentation. It is submitted that while the Hon’ble Court
is vested with wide powers, medical diagnosis—especially of
psychiatric disorders such as Paranoid Schizophrenia—requires
professional opinion, not casual observation.

5. . The petitioner respectfully submits that critical evidence detailing the

respondent’s history of severe psychiatric disturbances—including
manic episodes, homicidal behavior, and psychotic breakdowns—was
not permitted to be submitted as part of the objections before the
Hon’ble Court. This body of evidence, which includes certified medical
records, WhatsApp communications, video recordings, and
photographic documentation, is crucial to understanding the gravity of
the threat posed to the minor child. Specifically, the excluded
materials include documented instances of attempted strangulation,
repeated threats of filicide, and violent outbursts consistent with acute
psychotic episodes. The petitioner firmly believes that had these
materials been duly considered, they would have demonstrated the
respondent’s current and continuing unfitness to serve as the primary
caregiver, thereby necessitating judicial intervention in the interest of
the child’s safety and welfare..

6. The Hon'ble High Court erred in bypassing the Family Court’s ongoing
process in IA 5/2022, where the issue of the respondent’s mental
fitness to stand trial was pending evidentiary adjudication. The Family
Court had already posted the matter for evidence, acknowledging that
psychiatric assessment and witness examination were required.

7. The court’s reliance on a superficial verbal interaction instead of

psychiatric expert opinion in assessing a diagnosis as complex and
episodic as Paranoid Schizophrenia reflects a misapplication of legal
standards. This failure endangers not only the safety of the petitioner
 but also of the minor child born on 01/04/2022, currently in the custody
of the respondent.

8. The child’s well-being is at imminent risk due to the respondent’s

untreated mental condition. Past incidents include the multiple
strangulation attacks on the petitioner , against her foremer husband
and multiple others in her family, threatening to kill both herself and
the child, and being found not guilty in a police assault case on
grounds of insanity.

9. The judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court has effectively prevented

the petitioner from invoking protection under child safety laws. Due to
this order, the petitioner’s repeated approaches to various authorities
—including the State Child Protection Committee, District Legal
Services Authority, and Women and Child Welfare departments—have
failed, as all agencies are constrained by the judicial observation that
the respondent is “competent.”

10. As a result, despite providing evidence of homicidal threats,

psychotic behavior, and violent incidents, the petitioner remains
helpless. This Hon’ble Court’s judgment has created an administrative
impasse, leading to prolonged exposure of the child to psychological
and physical danger. No child welfare authority is willing to intervene
due to the overriding nature of the judicial observation.

11. The petitioner is thus left without any effective remedy to protect
his child, and pleads before this Hon’ble Court to review and set aside
the impugned order to allow for a full evidentiary trial before the Family
Court. The petitioner prays to be heard with compassion, with the
urgency and gravity this matter demands.

12. This Hon’ble Court’s decision to dismiss the IA without examining

the petitioner’s materials violates the principles of natural justice,
including the right to a fair hearing and the doctrine of audi alteram
partem under Article 21 of the Constitution.

13. The Petitioners respectfully submit that the order dated

05/07/2023 is liable to be reviewed on the following, amongst other,
grounds:

GROUNDS
A. Because the judgment was passed without hearing the petitioner’s
objections or considering certified digital evidence under Section 65B of the
Evidence Act.

B. Because the respondent’s mental condition—Paranoid Schizophrenia—

requires professional psychiatric assessment and cannot be gauged from a
court's short verbal interaction. C. Because the Family Court had posted IA
5/2022 for evidence, and the High Court’s decision preemptively concluded
the core issue without trial.

D. Because there is documented evidence of homicidal threats, physical

violence, and suicidal ideation, making the respondent unfit to retain custody
of a minor child. E. Because the High Court did not consult a medical expert
or review hospital records, despite the petitioner’s assertion of psychiatric
history.

F. Because the welfare of the minor child was not given paramount
importance as mandated under established custody jurisprudence.

G. Because the judgment is being used by administrative and legal bodies as

a bar to intervention, thereby defeating the constitutional and statutory
guarantees available for child protection.

H. Because the petitioner was denied a basic opportunity to be heard, and

the Hon’ble Court assumed a diagnostic role that requires expert evaluation.

This judgment, rendered in the absence of a trial or formal evidence,

precludes the petitioner from performing his fundamental duty as a father to
ensure the life, safety, and dignity of his child. I. Because the Hon’ble High
Court failed to consider the National Mental Health Policy 2014, MHA
Guidelines 2017, and Section 89(1)(c) of the Mental Healthcare Act, which
mandate psychiatric evaluation where credible records and threats exist. J.
Because evidence submitted to the Child Welfare Committee and District
Legal Services Authority is rendered ineffective solely due to the observation
by this Hon’ble Court.

PRAYER
The Petitioner, appearing as Party-in-Person, most respectfully submits
that he has been left with no choice but to represent himself in this matter,
having tirelessly pursued justice for the past four years across 38 hearings
in multiple Family Courts in Kerala, including Pala, Alappuzha, and
Irinjalakuda. Despite being a resident of Bangalore, the Petitioner has
consistently placed the welfare of his minor child above all else, responding
to repeated procedural hurdles and judicial delays. This protracted ordeal,
coupled with the respondent’s continuous non-appearance and misuse of
legal provisions, has forced the Petitioner to seek this Hon’ble Court’s direct
intervention.

The Petitioner places his unwavering trust in the wisdom and conscience of
this Hon’ble Court, praying not merely for technical redress but for justice in
its truest form—justice that safeguards a child’s life, dignity, and future. As
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer profoundly stated:

“Law without justice is a wound without a cure.”

In light of these guiding principles, the Petitioner humbly prays that this
Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(a) Review and recall the judgment dated 05/07/2023 passed in O.P. (FC) No.
386/2023, in the larger interest of truth and child welfare after carefully
considering the documents presented herewith

(b) Restore I.A. No. 5/2022 to the file of the Hon’ble Family Court,
Irinjalakuda, for fresh adjudication on merits through a full evidentiary trial,
including a court-directed psychiatric evaluation of Respondent No. 1 by a
qualified medical board;

(c) Permit the Petitioner to formally submit, as part of the record, all material
medical, digital, and forensic evidence that is critical for the just and
comprehensive adjudication of this matter. This includes:

 Verified psychosomatic medical records from recognized healthcare

institutions, detailing the 1st Respondent’s clinical presentation of
symptoms strongly indicative of paranoid schizophrenia, including:

o Psychogenic Dysphonia (speech disturbances triggered by

emotional dysregulation),

o Dry Eye Syndrome (DED) caused by autonomic dysfunction

linked to schizophrenia,
 o Oligohydramnios (amniotic fluid deficiency) during pregnancy as
a reflection of emotional instability,

o Chronic constipation and FGID indicating abnormal brain-gut

interaction due to psychological stress,

o Persistent somatic pain with no organic cause, medically

recognized as manifestations of unresolved psychiatric distress.

 WhatsApp message records exhibiting severe psychological instability,

including:

o Repeated suicidal ideation and threats of filicide,

o Grandiose delusions, religious hallucinations, paranoid

accusations, and hostile outbursts,

o Homicidal tendencies directed toward the Petitioner and threats

involving the minor child.

 Multimedia evidence (videos, photographs, screenshots) capturing

actual instances of violent, assaultive, and homicidal behavior by the
Respondent.

 Legal documents from the Respondent’s previous marriage, which

substantiate a pattern of mental illness, aggression, and annulment
proceedings based on psychiatric grounds.

 Certified forensic records and official child protection appeals filed with:

o The Child Welfare Committee (CWC),

o The National Child Welfare Committee, and

o The Kottayam District Child Welfare Committee.

In light of the above, the Petitioner further prays that this Hon’ble Court may
be pleased to direct the Hon’ble Family Court, Irinjalakuda, to urgently take
up Interim Application I.A. No. 2/2024 in O.P. No. 1800/2022, concerning the
Respondent’s psychiatric evaluation, and admit the same into evidence for a
thorough and merits-based determination.

This request is not speculative or adversarial—it is supported by

documented, verifiable, and clinically recognized evidence. The gravity of the
mental health risks involved demands immediate judicial attention in the
paramount interest of the minor child’s safety and development.
(d) Pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
just, keeping in mind the paramount welfare of the minor child.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF JUSTICE AND KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER

SHALL EVER REMAIN GRATEFUL.

Dated: [____________]
Filed by: Stephen Antony Venansious
Party-in-Person
Place: Bangalore