'Best Interests Of The Child': SC Reverses Custody Ruling Based On Psychological Needs

Last Updated:July 18, 2025, 02:36 IST

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

The SC said in custody matters, overly technical interpretations must give way to the evolving and sensitive needs of the child. (Image: PTI/File)

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.

Sanya Talwar

Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked previousl...Read More

Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked previousl...

Read More

Location :

First Published:

News india 'Best Interests Of The Child': SC Reverses Custody Ruling Based On Psychological Needs