Child’s Welfare Outweighs Finality of Judgment: Supreme Court Recalls Custody Verdict Due to Deterioration in Minor’s Mental Health

“Rigidity in Custody Orders Must Yield to the Child’s Best Interests”: Supreme Court Restores Custody to Mother on Post-Judgment Psychological Reports. In this judgement Supreme Court recalling its own prior verdict dated 22.08.2024. Exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Article 137 of the Constitution, the Court set aside its earlier decision that had transferred custody of a 12-year-old minor to the biological father, citing “new and compelling circumstances” which revealed a significant deterioration in the minor’s mental health. Declaring that, “the stability and psychological well-being of the child is paramount and cannot be sacrificed at the altar of procedural finality,” the Court restored permanent custody to the mother while granting structured visitation rights to the father.

The dispute arose from a custody battle between the petitioner-mother, Neethu, and the respondent-father, Rajesh Kumar. The marriage, solemnized in 2011, produced a son in 2012. Following separation in 2013 and divorce in 2015, the parties agreed that custody of the child would remain with the mother, while the father was granted visitation rights.

However, after the petitioner’s remarriage in 2016 and her proposed relocation abroad, the father sought permanent custody alleging alienation and lack of access. While the Family Court in 2022 retained custody with the mother, the High Court in October 2023 reversed this and awarded permanent custody to the father. The Supreme Court, through its judgment dated 22.08.2024, upheld the High Court’s order.

Shortly thereafter, the mother filed review petitions before the Supreme Court citing drastic deterioration in the child’s mental health following the decision, backed by clinical reports from the Psychiatry Department of CMC, Vellore, documenting anxiety and high risk of separation anxiety disorder in the minor.

Review Jurisdiction in Custody Cases: An Exception to Finality

The Supreme Court commenced its analysis by acknowledging that, “ordinarily, judgments of this Court are final,” but clarified that, “departure from finality is justified where the interest of a child is in jeopardy.”

The Court cited established jurisprudence, especially Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta, affirming that review is permissible under Article 137 when there is “discovery of new and important matter or evidence which could not have been produced earlier despite due diligence.”

The Court emphasized, “The child's deteriorating mental health is a subsequent development that could not have been placed before this Court during the hearing of appeals and directly impacts the correctness of the judgment.”

Welfare of the Child Is a Dynamic, Not Static, Standard

The Court stressed that custody decisions must always prioritize the evolving welfare of the child, observing that, “the welfare principle is inherently flexible and responsive to changing circumstances.”

Relying on Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A Chakramakkal and Athar Hussain v. Siraj Ahmed, the Court reiterated that custody matters are “interlocutory in nature” and must reflect “ongoing assessment of the child’s holistic well-being.”

Noting the child’s exclusive upbringing under the mother since infancy, the Court remarked, “the mother is not merely a caregiver but the emotional anchor and principal source of comfort for the child, a fact amply evidenced by the psychological assessments.”

Clinical Evidence of Emotional Harm: Foundation for Judicial Reversal

The Court found the clinical reports from CMC Vellore compelling, stating, “the series of reports reveal escalating levels of anxiety and distress in the child at the prospect of separation from his established family environment.”

Referring to the report dated 03.09.2024, the Court quoted, “the child exhibits high risk of separation anxiety disorder, recommending against disrupting his settled living arrangement.”

Rejecting the father’s objection that these reports were “mother-induced,” the Court observed, “no material has been placed to undermine the credibility of professional clinical evaluations or to rebut the objective findings of psychological distress.”

Restoration of Custody

The Court unequivocally held, “Permanent custody of the minor shall remain with the petitioner-mother as the immediate rupture of his primary familial environment is antithetical to his mental well-being.”

Balanced Visitation: Encouraging Gradual Reconnection with Father

While restoring custody to the mother, the Court crafted a nuanced visitation arrangement. It ruled, “the biological father is permitted weekly in-person visitation and bi-weekly virtual interaction, providing the child space to reacquaint himself with the father at a comfortable, child-friendly pace.”

Further, it directed, “the respondent may seek enhanced visitation, including overnight stays, in future if psychological assessments reflect positive adaptation by the child.”

Regulation of Foreign Travel

Addressing the father’s concern regarding potential alienation, the Court imposed safeguards: “The mother is restrained from permanently relocating the child abroad. Foreign travel is permitted only during holidays with prior notice to the father and Family Court.”

Regular Psychological Monitoring

In a significant welfare-centric direction, the Court mandated, “both parties shall participate in counseling sessions and a fresh psychological assessment shall be undertaken within three months to monitor the child’s emotional progress.”

The Court warned, “any attempt by the father to emotionally coerce the child shall be viewed with disapproval,” cautioning against the recurrence of incidents which allegedly triggered the minor’s emotional distress.

Summarising its reasoning, the Court pronounced, “when the best interests of a child are compromised by changed circumstances, judicial orders must adapt to evolving realities.”

The Court reiterated its commitment to the doctrine of parens patriae, concluding, “Our constitutional role as guardians of child welfare obliges us to reconsider judgments where their rigid application causes harm to the child’s well-being.”

Ultimately, the Court allowed the review petition, recalled its earlier judgment, restored custody to the mother, and provided a modified visitation schedule to ensure balanced parental involvement.

As the Court poignantly observed, “In the life of a growing child, stability is security, and psychological well-being is non-negotiable.”

Date of Decision: 15th July 2025