The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that in custody disputes, courts exercising parens patriae jurisdiction must prioritize the welfare of the child over the bitterness and acrimony between estranged parents. Dismissing a Special Leave Petition against an order passed by the Karnataka High Court, the Court directed the continuation of a minor child’s psychological evaluation at the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), Bengaluru.
A Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice K. Vinod Chandran delivered a reasoned order on 25 June 2025, underscoring the paramountcy of the child’s well-being in cases clouded by “resentment, resulting from a troubled marriage.”
The Court observed:
“The Courts exercising such jurisdiction oftener than ever are faced with the problem of the parents having custody, using the child as a tool to settle scores arising from the marital fights. The Courts often must perceive things which are not visible to the naked eye, read between the lines and separate the grain of truth from the chaff of rancor, animosity and bitterness resulting from an estranged relationship.”
Background
The matter arose from a guardianship dispute involving a minor child born in 2014. The child remained with the mother following separation in 2021, while the father approached the court for custody and access. An interim order granted custody to the mother with limited visitation rights to the father. Upon the father’s application, the Karnataka High Court later expanded access, allowing interim custody for part of the child’s summer vacation.
The mother, however, failed to comply with the High Court’s orders, including directives to produce the child for visitation and counselling. The Court noted that when the child was eventually presented, she refused to interact with her father and made offensive statements, which the Court deemed likely to be the result of parental alienation and mental conditioning by the custodial parent.
Judicial Analysis
The Supreme Court, concurring with the High Court, emphasized that the custodial parent had shown “adamant attitude” and had consistently disobeyed court orders aimed at facilitating a reconciliation between the child and the other parent.
Referring to a private medical certificate produced by the mother indicating signs of distress in the child such as disturbed sleep, irritability, and anxiety, the Court held that such symptoms merited further independent evaluation.
The High Court had, based on expert recommendations from NIMHANS, ordered an inpatient evaluation of the child to determine the causes of psychological distress and to attempt reconciliation. Upholding this direction, the Supreme Court stated:
“The inpatient admission in NIMHANS, a premier institute of mental health, is neither for the treatment of the child nor is there a finding entered into by the Court of any mental illness. In fact, the medical certificate produced by the mother itself indicates that the child is under stress and has anxiety problems, more due to the estranged relationship of her parents.”
The NIMHANS report, quoted in the judgment, stated:
“In light of the complex interplay of psychological, legal, and familial factors and the child’s emotional/psychological symptoms, it is clinically recommended that the minor child be admitted for structured inpatient care… for diagnostic clarification and clinical management… solely in the interest of safeguarding the child’s long-term psychological well-being and best interests.”
Directions
The Court ordered that the child be taken by the District Child Protection Officer, along with the mother, to NIMHANS on 4 July 2025 at 11:30 AM for admission. The doctors-in-charge at NIMHANS were given the discretion to decide on the mother’s stay or visitation during the evaluation period, as well as visitation rights of the father and the child protection officer.
Upon completion of the evaluation, a report is to be submitted to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Karnataka in a sealed cover. The custody arrangement—child with the mother and visitation for the father—would continue as per previous orders until further directions from the High Court.
The Supreme Court clarified that all expenses related to the evaluation and stay at NIMHANS shall be borne by the father.
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition, the Court reiterated its earlier stance:
“The judicial mind must rise above such accusations made, which is motivated by the resentment, resulting from a troubled marriage and keep in mind the paramount consideration which is the welfare of the child; always, ideally served by the company of both the parents and their families.”
The Court directed that the High Court may pass appropriate further orders upon receipt of the NIMHANS report, and disposed of all pending applications.
