In a landmark judgment concerning the delicate intersection of parental custody battles and child abuse allegations, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that a child’s emotional security, dignity, and psychological integrity must take precedence over the adversarial claims of contesting parents. A division bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh partly allowed an appeal filed by a mother, modifying the orders of the Bombay High Court which had directed the psychological evaluation of a ten-year-old child by a four-member “panel of experts.” The Supreme Court held that subjecting a child—who is also an alleged victim of sexual abuse—to repeated and multi-layered psychological evaluations risks secondary victimisation and re-traumatisation.
“The controversy before this Court lies at the intersection of two competing concerns. On one hand stands the claim of a parent seeking restoration of access and reconnection with the child; on the other stands the obligation of constitutional courts to ensure that a child who is already in a fractured family because of the discord and temporary separation of the parents, is also allegedly a victim of sexual abuse by her own father, is not subjected to processes which may aggravate the trauma and compromise emotional recovery of the child.”
Background of the Case
The appellant-wife and respondent-husband were married on February 10, 2015, in Faridabad, Haryana, and later relocated to the United States of America. A daughter was born to them on June 24, 2016, in New Jersey. The appellant alleged that during 2018–2019, the respondent subjected her to physical abuse and sexually abused their minor daughter when the child was approximately two years old. Following an incident of domestic assault on December 29, 2019, the appellant returned to India with the child on December 30, 2019.
A series of intense legal disputes ensued. The appellant served a divorce notice seeking a mutual settlement of Rs. 2.77 crores. The respondent filed Habeas Corpus petitions before both the Supreme Court (which was withdrawn) and the Bombay High Court to obtain custody. Meanwhile, the appellant raised allegations of sexual abuse and registered a Zero FIR against the respondent in Pune under Sections 376, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 4, 5(1), 5(n), and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Another FIR was registered in Faridabad. The Supreme Court subsequently directed that both FIRs be clubbed and investigated by a woman Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) in Pune.
While the criminal case was pending, the respondent moved the Family Court, Pune, seeking the appointment of an independent child psychiatric expert to evaluate the child, her living conditions, and both parents to re-establish physical connection with his daughter. The Family Court rejected the application on April 28, 2022, noting the serious POCSO charges, the fact that the child was already receiving therapeutic care under psychologist Dr. Mridula Apte, and that exposing the child to the respondent or further evaluations would be hazardous.
On appeal, the Bombay High Court, on January 7, 2023, directed the Family Court to appoint a single independent expert in child psychology at Jalgaon. However, the respondent later moved an interlocutory application claiming no suitable experts were available in Jalgaon and suggested a panel of experts. This led the High Court to pass the first impugned order on April 27, 2023, modifying “expert” to “panel of experts.” Subsequently, on December 7, 2023, the High Court constituted a four-member panel of experts—including out-of-state and US-based professionals—to evaluate the child. The mother challenged both orders before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant-mother argued that the High Court’s directives would subject the child to repeated and highly intrusive evaluations by multiple experts at the instance of the accused parent. She contended that this would cause severe emotional distress, re-traumatisation, and secondary victimisation. It was further argued that the panel was largely formed from names proposed by the respondent-father, compromising institutional neutrality, and that the process was being used as an adversarial tool to debunk the sexual abuse allegations under the guise of exploring “parental alienation syndrome” and “false memory creation.”
Conversely, the respondent-father submitted that the allegations under the POCSO Act were entirely false, fabricated, and motivated by matrimonial discord. He contended that the appellant had deliberately alienated the child from him and that the psychiatric evaluation was requested in good faith to facilitate the restoration of emotional bonding. He argued that the mother had participated in the selection of experts before the High Court, and that the January 2023 order directing evaluation had already attained finality.
The Court’s Analysis and Precedents
The Supreme Court examined the legal boundaries of judicially-directed psychological evaluations of minor children who are also alleged victims in pending POCSO cases. The Court emphasized that the procedural framework of the justice system must be child-sensitive and trauma-informed, drawing direct guidance from Sections 24, 33(5), 36, and 39 of the POCSO Act.
“The legislative emphasis is, therefore, not confined merely to collection of evidence, but extends equally to preservation of the emotional and psychological security of the child throughout the process especially when it involves interaction with the child.”
The bench observed that the High Court committed a fundamental flaw by failing to evaluate how repeated interactions with multiple professionals would impact the child. The Court held that the High Court failed to justify why a single expert was insufficient and how a four-member panel satisfied the principle of minimum intrusion. It warned that courts must remain vigilant against allowing evaluations to become tools of litigation.
“The justice delivery system cannot treat the child as a mere evidentiary object subjected to repeated forensic or psychological scrutiny at the instance of contesting litigants. The psychological integrity of the child constitutes an independent and paramount consideration which courts are duty-bound to preserve.”
The Court reviewed several key precedents:
- Sakshi v. Union of India: Wherein the Court recognized the profound psychological impact of intimidating judicial procedures on child victims and directed safeguards to prevent repeated exposure.
- Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal: Which established that the child’s welfare must be understood in its widest sense—including moral, ethical, and psychological development—and affirmed the court’s parens patriae jurisdiction.
- Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan & Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu: Reiterating that foreign custody orders or comity are subordinate to the paramount consideration of the child’s welfare.
- Thrity Hoshie Dolikuka v. Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka: Warning that repeated interviews of a tender mind by multiple judges or experts cast a gloom and cause severe strain and depression on the child.
- Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh: Which outlined the destructive psychological effects of “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS) on a child forced to choose sides.
- Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh v. Sugandhi Aggarwal: Cautioning that: “Courts ought not to prematurely and without identification of individual instances of ‘alienating behaviour’, label any parent as propagator and/or potential promoter of such behaviour.”
The Court also referenced a 2025 qualitative study conducted by NIMHANS on child mental health in Indian custody disputes. The study highlighted risk factors such as malicious parental dynamics, bad-mouthing, and manipulation, and underscored that children often become vulnerable bystanders caught in parental conflict, suffering academic and emotional decline.
In light of these principles, the Court emphasized that a child’s mental state is deeply connected to the parents’ mental states, stating:
“We are also of the view that the Court must not focus its attention solely on the psychological assessment of the child but must also bestow attention to the psychological assessment of the parents.”
Furthermore, the Court cautioned against converting psychological evaluations into hostile proceedings:
“The moment such evaluation begins to assume the character of an adversarial exercise intended to validate or discredit allegations made by the child, the process risks losing its therapeutic legitimacy and may undermine the confidence, comfort and psychological safety of the child participating therein.”
The Decision
The Supreme Court modified the impugned orders of the Bombay High Court and remitted the matter back to the Family Court, Pune, with the following directives:
- Evaluation of Parents: The Family Court shall appoint a competent psychologist to evaluate the current mental and psychological conditions of both parents, particularly the mother who has custody.
- Consultation with Existing Therapist: The appointed psychologist shall interact with the child’s current treating child psychologist to understand the child’s psychological status, without directly involving the child in new, intrusive assessments.
- Submission of Report: The appointed psychologist will submit a comprehensive report to the Family Court.
- Discretion on Child’s Assessment: The Family Court, after considering the parental and therapist reports, will decide whether any direct psychological assessment of the child is desirable. If deemed unnecessary, no assessment shall be conducted. If necessary, it must be performed by a single independent child psychologist with minimum possible interaction.
- Periodic Review: As the child grows, the Family Court, acting as parens patriae, will periodically review the psychological needs of the child and modify orders as dynamic circumstances dictate.
- Parental Alienation Check: The Family Court must monitor potential “parental alienation syndrome” or “false memory creation” by seeking reports from the treating psychologist, ensuring the child is not subjected to direct, distressful questioning on this issue.
The Supreme Court also set out 20 detailed guiding principles for constitutional and family courts dealing with the psychological evaluation of minors in custody disputes. These guidelines mandate minimum intrusion, institutional neutrality, strict confidentiality of therapeutic records, and avoiding overlapping panel evaluations unless in highly exceptional circumstances. The bench concluded that:
“While doing so, the court must ensure that the child is not subjected to avoidable intrusion, repeated exposure or unnecessary psychological burden. The controlling consideration, at every stage, must remain the best interest, dignity, emotional security and psychological welfare of the child.”
The court directed both parties to keep the Family Court informed about the status of the pending POCSO criminal proceedings against the father, as it directly impacts any decisions regarding visitation or custody.
Case Details
Case Title: Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 18701-18702 of 2024)
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Date: June 11, 2026
