The Kerala High Court recently expressed strong disapproval of a family court's ruling to grant custody of a child to the father, citing the mother's alleged unfitness to care for her children.

The decision was based on claims that the mother exhibited "loose morals," frequently wore "revealing dresses," posted her pictures on dating apps, and spent time with male friends.

The family court's comments on the mother's loose morals and revealing attire were based on screenshots from her Bumble dating app profile.

However, a Division Bench of Justices Devan Ramachandran and MB Snehalatha of the Kerala High Court observed that she was dressed modestly in the images.

The High Court also pointed out that the family court had not considered the woman's claim that her husband had created the dating profile and uploaded photos of her without her consent.

Additionally, the High Court criticized the family court's statement that the woman must always feel sorrowful after a divorce, deeming it a reflection of misogynistic bias and the reinforcement of the stereotype that women should be submissive, servile, and subdued.

"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.

The High Court opined that the family court had examined the material presented to it "from the angle of unnecessary sexism" and emphasized that courts must avoid engaging in moral policing based on personal judgments.

"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 hearing a custody dispute between a divorced couple. The man accused his ex-wife of having loose morals, while the woman labeled him a narcissist and a sexual pervert. The family court had granted custody of the children to the father, citing the mother’s alleged loose morals, revealing attire, time spent with male friends, and verbal abuse towards her husband. It also concluded that she had hired a hacker to access her husband's computer.

Challenging this order, the woman approached the High Court seeking custody of the children. The High Court remarked that such cases reflect how entrenched gender roles and patriarchy continue to shape societal attitudes and behaviors.

"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.

The Court further stated that such policing of women's clothing choices, which often starts in childhood, affects them in numerous ways throughout their lives.