'Best Interests Of The Child': SC Reverses Custody Ruling Based On Psychological Needs
The Supreme Court reversed its verdict, restoring custody of a 12-year-old boy to his mother after new evaluations showed him to be distressed due to transfer of custody to father
In a significant reversal of its earlier verdict, the Supreme Court has accepted a review petition filed by a woman against its August 22, 2024 judgment that had granted permanent custody of her 12-year-old son to her former husband.
This decision comes after new psychological evaluations revealed that the child was suffering from severe mental distress following the transfer of custody. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale invoked the court's parens patriae jurisdiction, stressing that in custody matters intersecting with constitutional review standards, overly technical interpretations must give way to the evolving and sensitive needs of the child.
The judges observed that 'a far too hyper-technical approach shall indeed amount to abandoning the doctrine of parens patriae and cause travesty of justice", reiterating that the guiding principle in all custody cases remains the best interest of the child. They held that this standard is 'ever-evolving and cannot be confined in a straitjacket".
The mother had remarried, converted to Christianity, and planned to relocate the child to Malaysia. The earlier judgment that transferred custody to the biological father had relied on traditional assumptions favouring the father's position.
New facts on record, however, prompted judicial reconsideration. The petitioner presented psychological assessments from Christian Medical College (CMC), Vellore, indicating that the child was experiencing clinical anxiety and symptoms of separation anxiety disorder. It was noted that the child had never spent a night apart from his mother, and the sudden transfer of custody had caused intense emotional distress.
The mother further argued that the child views her husband from the second marriage as a father figure and shares a close bond with his half-brother. She stressed that their family unit has been stable for years and that disrupting this arrangement would irreversibly damage the child's mental health.
The court acknowledged these reports and noted that the child finds 'calm and refuge" in his mother's presence and considers his stepfather an essential paternal figure. It also recognised that the stepfather had made committed representations regarding the child's education and welfare and was financially capable of supporting the child.
Conversely, the biological father challenged the hospital reports, claiming that they were based on biased narratives provided by the mother and her husband. He accused the woman of deliberately keeping the child away from him between 2016 and 2019.
The court, however, observed that these allegations did not diminish the current psychological impact on the child or negate the strength of his emotional ecosystem. The bench underscored that the father's right to parenthood, while important, could not override the child's well-being.
'It would be extremely harsh and insensitive for the courts of law to expect the child to accept and flourish in an alien household where his own biological father is akin to a stranger," the court observed.
Restoring permanent custody to the mother, the court recognised the father's right to build a bond with his son. Visitation rights were granted, allowing him to meet the child regularly.
The court stressed that any relationship must evolve organically, over time, with emotional patience and responsibility. The bench cautioned the father against making 'crude or insensitive remarks" and said no bond can be imposed abruptly.
'A father-son relation can only be fostered patiently over years, marked by continued presence and nurtured with love, care and empathy," it said.
The court also imposed restrictions on international relocation. The mother cannot permanently move the child outside India but will be permitted to take him abroad during Onam, Christmas, and for half of his summer vacation. It reminded both parents of their constitutional and moral duty to protect the child's psychological and emotional well-being.
The judgment encouraged effective communication between them and urged mutual respect despite their personal differences. 'Parents must not allow their bitter past to impede the emotional health of the child," the court cautioned.
The judgment concluded by urging the mother to facilitate the child's acceptance of both parents for a balanced emotional upbringing. In a case blending constitutional interpretation with child psychology, the court reaffirmed its commitment to prioritising welfare over formality.
Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated!
tags :
child custody
view comments
First Published:
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
25 minutes ago
- India Today
Udaipur Files producer Amit Jani given Y-category security amid threats
In the wake of the ongoing controversy and threats around 'Udaipur Files', a film based on Udaipur tailor Kanhaiya Lal's murder, the producer of the movie, Amit Jani, has been provided Y-category security, an official statement said on movie is based on Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor from Udaipur who was murdered by Mohammad Riyaz and Mohammad Ghous for allegedly sharing a post supporting former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma's controversial on-air remarks on Prophet Muhammad in per the Y-category security protocol, Jani will be accompanied by a total of 11 personnel of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). The security cover will be provided to Jani for movement within Uttar Pradesh and Delhi. This came days after the Supreme Court allowed the producer, director and the son of Kanhaiya Lal to approach the police and seek protection as they alleged threat to their top court noted that if the threats are found to be serious in nature, concerned authorities must take steps to ensure their safety.'Udaipur Files: Kanhaiya Lal Tailor Murder' got the go-ahead for a release in theatres on August 8, 2025 after a Supreme Court ruling directed the Delhi High Court to address challenges against the government's approval of the film's court directed those objecting to it to approach the Delhi High Court to challenge the Centre's revisional order, which had allowed the movie to be screened with six Bharat Shrinate announced the new release date after the Supreme Court's decision, signalling the end of the legal journey for the film's Ministry of Information and Broadcasting directed the makers of Udaipur Files to implement six specific changes before its release, in line with the recommendations of a screening slated for release on July 11, 2025, 'Udaipur Files' faced many delays due to censorship and legal troubles. The film, featuring Vijay Raaz as Kanhaiya Lal, is produced by Amit Jani and has generated considerable interest among audiences and critics tailor Kanhaiya Lal was murdered in June 2022 allegedly by Mohammad Riyaz and Mohammad assailants later released a video claiming that the murder was in reaction to the tailor allegedly sharing a social media post in support of former BJP member Nupur Sharma following her controversial comments on Prophet case was probed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the accused were booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, besides provisions under trial is pending before the special NIA court in Jaipur.- EndsMust Watch
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
LDF, UDF condemn arrest of two Keralite nuns on ‘trumped-up' charge of forced conversion in Chhattisgarh
The arrest of two Keralite nuns on charges of human trafficking and kidnapping for forced religious conversion at the Durg railway station in Chhattisgarh on Friday has drawn sharp criticism from Church leaders and also the ruling front and the Opposition in Kerala. Fr. Robin Rodrigues, a spokesperson of the Catholic Bishops Conference of India (CBCI), told reporters in Raipur, the capital of Chhattisgarh, on Sunday that the nuns were travelling with three other women, aged between 18 and 19, from Durg to Agra when persons suspected to be Bajrang Dal workers accosted them angrily. He said they accused the nuns, Sister Vandana Francis, from the Udayagiri parish at Thalassery in Kannur, and Sister Preeta Mary from the Elavoor parish at Angamaly in Ernakulam, of taking women to Agra to convert them to Christianity and offering them money, food, and accommodation as inducements. Both are attached to the Assisi Sisters of Mary Immaculate (ASMI) order. CBCI Women's Council secretary Asha Paul said the women were travelling with the sisters on their own volition. They had consent letters from their parents and identity proof, including Aadhar, and railway tickets. Judicial remand Sister Asha alleged that the police refused to hear the nuns' entreaties to contact the parents of the women and record their statements before initiating prosecution. Instead, the officers brazenly sided with the suspected Bajrang Dal activists and arrested the nuns on non-bailable charges. She said the sisters were currently in judicial remand at a Durg prison and a court will hear their bail plea on Monday. All India Congress Committee (AICC) general secretary (Organisation) K.C. Venugopal, MP, said the arrest of the nuns on 'trumped up' charges was the latest incident in the long series of persecution of minorities in the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-ruled States in north India, chiefly Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh. Mr. Venugopal told reporters in New Delhi that he has conveyed Congress's strong protest to Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel and Union Home Minister Amit Shah against the high-handedness of the State police. PM's intervention sought Left Democratic Front (LDF) leader and chairperson of the Kerala Congress (M) Jose K. Mani, MP, posted on social media that he has sought the urgent intervention of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to stop mob attacks against Christians and Church leaders in BJP-ruled States. Leader of the Opposition V.D. Satheesan depicted the BJP as a 'wolf in sheep's clothing'. He said the BJP made a show of visiting Church leaders, Christian households, and bishops to woo the community to its fold. At the same time, the BJP unleashed the Sangh Parivar forces against Christians in States where it held power.
News18
9 hours ago
- News18
Complainant's SC/ST Status Alone Cannot Trigger Atrocities Act, Says Supreme Court
The SC has reiterated that the offence must be committed specifically on grounds of the victim's caste or tribal identity for the Act to apply The Supreme Court (SC) recently held that the mere fact of a complainant belonging to a Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST) community is not sufficient to attract the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court has reiterated that the offence must be committed specifically on grounds of the victim's caste or tribal identity for the Act to apply. The judgment was delivered on July 22, by a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta. The SC was hearing a petition challenging the initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, along with sections 294, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), arising from a domestic dispute between a man and his estranged wife. The appellant had approached the SC seeking quashing of the proceedings, arguing that there was no caste-based element to the dispute and that the SC/ST Act had been wrongly invoked. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had earlier declined to interfere with the criminal proceedings. Setting aside the High Court's order, the Supreme Court clarified that for an offence to fall within the purview of Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, there must be a specific intention to insult or intimidate a person belonging to the SC or ST communities, and such conduct must occur in a place within public view. More importantly, the insult or intimidation must be 'on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe". The bench observed that the statute cannot be invoked solely because the complainant is a member of a protected community. The underlying motivation behind the alleged act must be to target the individual due to their caste identity. In the absence of such intent, the invocation of the SC/ST Act would not be legally sustainable. In the present case, the Court found that the allegations arose out of a matrimonial discord and that there was no specific averment or material to show that the alleged abuse or insult was targeted at the complainant because of her caste. The complaint lacked any assertion that the alleged acts were committed with caste-based malice or occurred in public view with the intention of humiliating the complainant on account of her caste. The Court relied on its earlier decision in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020), where it had similarly held that disputes of a purely private nature, such as property or domestic issues, do not attract the provisions of the SC/ST Act unless there is a clear indication of caste-based animus. In that case, the Court had cautioned against the misuse of the protective statute and emphasised that its application must be based on objective facts that demonstrate the commission of an offence specifically aimed at humiliating or oppressing a person due to their SC/ST status. Reiterating this position, the Court held that allowing the proceedings to continue under the SC/ST Act in the absence of necessary legal ingredients would be a misuse of process and would dilute the purpose of the statute. The judgment underscores the principle that special legislation enacted to protect marginalised communities must be applied with precision and not be extended to situations where its core requirements are not met. The Supreme Court proceeded to quash the proceedings under the SC/ST Act while leaving the charges under the Indian Penal Code to be decided on merits before the trial court. The decision reiterates the judiciary's approach to ensuring that while the rights of historically oppressed communities must be safeguarded, the criminal law must not be weaponised in situations where the essential statutory conditions are absent. This court has sifted cases where allegations under the SC/ST Act are made without establishing a direct link to caste-based motivation. view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
