“We cannot turn a blind eye to the trauma that is being inflicted on the child in consequence of the orders of courts of law handing custody to the father…” In an extraordinary course correction, the Supreme Court has recalled its previous order granting custody of a 12-year-old boy to his biological father, after it emerged that the decision had caused a severe psychological breakdown in the child. The Court admitted that both the apex court and the Kerala High Court had erred in awarding custody without adequately ascertaining the minor’s emotional welfare and preferences.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale passed the order while allowing a review petition filed by the child’s mother. The Court was presented with medical documentation confirming that the child had suffered a mental health collapse following his forced separation from his mother, with whom he had lived since infancy. He is presently undergoing psychiatric treatment.
The Bench noted that the father, despite being biologically related, had only minimal contact with the child over a span of 12 years. “It would be extremely harsh and insensitive for 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 to him,” the Court observed.
The parties were divorced in 2011, within two years of marriage. The child had resided with the mother since the separation. In 2022, the father approached a family court seeking custody after the mother decided to relocate to Malaysia with her second husband, whom she had married in 2015. The family court declined the request, but the Kerala High Court, and subsequently the Supreme Court in August 2023, directed that custody be handed over to the father.
Following this transition, the child exhibited acute psychological distress, marked by severe anxiety and signs of separation anxiety disorder, as recorded in the report of a clinical psychologist. The mother then approached the Supreme Court seeking review of the custody order, submitting medical evidence of the adverse impact on the child’s mental health.
Acknowledging the ramifications of its earlier order, the Court did not hesitate to concede the judicial misstep. It described the effect of the order as having a “calamitous effect” on the child’s well-being and held that the child’s deteriorating mental state was “as a consequence of judicial order changing custody”.
The Court emphasized that custody determinations cannot be reduced to a contest of legal rights between estranged parents but must centre on the child’s psychological safety and comfort. It sharply criticised the failure to interact with the minor prior to issuing the earlier direction, noting that such omission had led to an avoidable crisis.
The Bench noted that the earlier decision to alter custody was taken “without the benefit of interacting with the child or assessing his comfort and willingness”. It further held that the judicial process must exhibit sensitivity to the unique emotional landscape of each child and that the present case illustrates the dangers of mechanically enforcing parental rights without gauging the emotional consequences on the child.
Recalling its August 2023 order, the Court restored custody to the mother and made it clear that the priority must always remain the best interests and psychological security of the child.
Picture Source :
