In a matrimonial dispute case, the Supreme Court reversed its custody order, citing the emotional stress the child suffered due to separation from his mother. Child welfare remains paramount.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court, concerning a child custody dispute, emphasized that custody orders cannot be treated as rigid or final and must always remain subject to modification in the best interest of the child.
The case involved a 12-year-old boy who had been in the custody of his mother since infancy, while the father, who had remained absent for several years, sought custody through the courts.
ALSO READ: Child Custody Laws in India: Legal Rights of Parents| Explained
Background
The petitioner-wife and respondent-husband were married on 4th September 2011 and had a son on 7th November 2012. However, due to marital differences, they began living separately in October 2013 and later agreed to divorce by mutual consent. As part of their agreement, custody of the minor child was given to the mother, with the father receiving limited visitation rights. Their divorce was finalized by the Family Court, Attingal in June 2015.
The petitioner remarried in August 2016 and settled in Thiruvananthapuram with her new husband, his two children from a previous marriage, and a child born from their union. Between 2016 and 2019, the respondent claimed he did not know his son’s whereabouts.
In 2019, the petitioner contacted him for documentation related to the child’s proposed relocation to Malaysia, which led to the respondent discovering the petitioner’s remarriage and change of the child’s religion without his consent.
Subsequently, the respondent filed for permanent custody in the Family Court. The case was transferred to the Family Court in Ottapalam, where the petitioner also filed a counterclaim seeking permission to take the child abroad.
The Trial Court, in its judgment dated 31st October 2022, dismissed the father’s plea for custody but granted him limited visitation rights while awarding permanent custody to the mother. It also allowed the mother to travel abroad with the child during vacations with proper court instructions.
Both parties challenged this decision in the High Court. On 17th October 2023, the High Court reversed the Trial Court’s order and granted permanent custody to the father, reasoning that relocation to Malaysia would not serve the child’s best interests. The mother was granted virtual and periodic physical visitation rights.
The petitioner then filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court, which initially granted interim visitation to the father. Although the matter was later converted into a civil appeal, it was dismissed on 22nd August 2024, thereby upholding the High Court’s order granting custody to the father.
Court’s Observation
Following the Supreme Court’s earlier dismissal of appeals that had granted custody of a 12-year-old boy to his biological father, the mother filed review petitions citing fresh psychological evidence showing severe emotional distress suffered by the child.
The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale noted that the custody order had a “calamitous effect” on the child’s health, and he had been suffering from anxiety.
The clinical psychologist’s report from CMC, Vellore, highlighted that the child faced a high risk of separation anxiety disorder, triggered by the impending separation from his mother, his primary caregiver since infancy. The review also referred to allegations of threats made by the father to the child, though the Court did not make a finding on this issue due to conflicting accounts.
“It has been advised throughout these reports by experienced psychologists and psychiatrists at CMC, Vellore, to provide the child with a stable and emotionally supportive environment during this time of distress. Further, it has been strongly cautioned that any disruption in the existing support systems can further deteriorate the emotional well-being of the child.”
The Court emphasized that while review jurisdiction is narrow and sparingly exercised, custody matters are unique in that they are interlocutory in nature and may evolve with changing circumstances, especially where the welfare of the child is involved.
“The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by this Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.”
The Court held that,
“The core and inalienable standard is the paramount consideration of the child’s welfare, which is affected by an array of factors, is ever evolving and cannot be confined in a straitjacket,”
Given the new psychological evaluations, which could not have been produced during the original appeal hearing, the Court held that the criteria for review under Article 137 of the Constitution were satisfied.
It was observed that the child had never been separated from his mother, had little to no bond with his biological father, and had grown up in a stable and affectionate environment with his mother, stepfather, and half-brother. The Court rejected the idea that a change in custody was in the child’s best interest, instead recognizing that the earlier custody order had caused serious emotional harm.
While reaffirming the child’s permanent custody with the mother, the Court acknowledged the father’s right to foster a bond and accordingly granted him structured virtual and in-person visitation rights, with the possibility of expanding these in the future based on the child’s comfort and psychological development.
The Court also directed both parents to undergo counselling sessions, mandated periodic psychological assessments, and restrained the mother from relocating the child abroad, except during school vacations and under strict conditions.
Ultimately, the Court allowed the review petitions, recalled its earlier judgment dated 22.08.2024, restored the civil appeals, set aside the High Court’s order, and reinstated the Family Court’s decision of 31.10.2022 with modified visitation terms. The judgment closed with a reminder to both parents to act in the best interest of the child and not let personal disputes compromise his emotional well-being.
Case Title: N vs R
R.P. (C) NOS. 2273-2274/2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports on Child Custody
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
