Politics News

'Mother, A Great Source Of Comfort And Safety To Minor Child', SC Reverses Its Order Handing Over Custody To His Father

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that it would be extremely harsh for the courts of law to expect the child to flourish in an alien household where his own biological father is akin to a stranger to him, while reversing its 2024 order to hand over a 12-year-old boy's custody to his father. The apex court said mother remains a great source of comfort and safety to the minor child. A bench comprising justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale said a father-son relation can only be fostered patiently over the course of years, marked by his continued presence and responsibility-bearing attitude, and nurtured with boundless love, care and empathy. The apex court on July 15, allowed the plea of a mother citing medical reports indicating that the child suffered fears with a high risk for separation anxiety disorder. The mother of the child had filed the review petition against the August 22, 2024 judgment, which had upheld the high court's order granting the custody of the child to the father as she had remarried, converted to Christianity and sought to relocate the child to Malaysia. Justice Nath, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, said the stability and security of the child is an essential ingredient for the full development of the child's talent and personality. He observed that even most of the well grown adults do not perceive sudden and huge changes in their lives very comfortably and often exhibit symptoms of distress when confronted with such an imminent change to their regular life. "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 to him", said Justice Nath. He stressed that the court cannot turn a blind eye to the trauma that is being inflicted on the child in consequences of the orders of the courts of law handing custody to the father, who is alleged to exhibit apathy towards the tender emotional state of the minor. The bench stressed that the core and inalienable standard in such cases is the paramount consideration of the child's welfare, affected by an array of factors, which is ever evolving and cannot be confined in a straitjacket. The bench considered the mother's submission and the medical reports. "We sincerely believe that undertaking a far too hyper technical approach in such cases shall indeed amount to abandoning the doctrine of parens patriae and will cause travesty of justice", said Justice Nath. The bench noted that the psychological reports on record make it absolutely clear that the minor's normative universe comprises his current family setting, primarily and especially involving his mother who has been the child's sole caregiver for the past eleven years. The bench said in such circumstances, the change in permanent custody shall also essentially amount to upending the very core of the stable and familiar environment in which the child currently lives and prospers. "This enormous transition cannot be said to be conducive to the best interest of the child, as it is reflective of his current mental status. It has rather been quite damaging to his welfare", it said. The bench said it is essential to remind both the parents of their primary responsibility towards child's nurturing, which can be achieved by effective communication and smooth execution of the above arrangement, while exhibiting mutual respect. "The parties are advised not to let their bitter past experience impede the child's wellbeing, especially given the sensitive emotional state of the tender child. The petitioner is advised to encourage the child to accept and welcome both the parents in his life for a well-rounded development", said the bench. The mother's counsel had argued that since the couple separated in October 2013, i.e. when the child was barely 11- month-old, he has only met with the respondent-father a handful of times and has never spent even one night apart from his mother. However, the father's counsel argued that the clinical psychologist report cannot be relied upon to decide the mental well-being of the child as the basis of such a report is the history, symptoms, and information provided by the mother and the stepfather to the concerned doctor. The bench said a perusal of the psychological assessment reports brings forth that in moments of distress and heightened emotions, the child seeks refuge in his mother's arms and finds her presence to be calming. The bench said that the mother remained a great source of comfort and safety to the minor child. The apex court observed that the mother got remarried when the child was not even four years old, and ever since his preschool days, the child recognised his stepfather to be a part of the family and considers him to be an essential paternal figure in his life. "The second child born to the petitioner out of her current wedlock is also perceived by the minor son in question as his sibling and he shows a great amount of fondness for his younger brother," the bench said. The apex court allowed the child's father with regular visitation rights.

Latest Stories

Read Full Story