Sheetal Vasant Thakur Vs. Chirag Arora
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.18701-18702 OF 2024
(DB, Before Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Sanjay Karol, JJ.,
Delivered by Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.)
Overview
In this case, the Supreme Court examined the manner in which the court should deal with the psychological evaluation of children when it comes to custody disputes, where the allegations as to sexual abuse are still pending. The dispute arose from the order passed by the Bombay High Court, which directed the minor child to be assessed by a panel of experts to facilitate reconnection with her father.
The appellant, who is the mother of the child, challenged these directions, while arguing that repeated interaction with multiple experts could cause emotional stress to the child who was already undergoing therapy. Not to mention, also the subject of pending proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 (POCSO Act).
The issue to be dealt by the Court was whether a child alleged to be a victim of sexual abuse, could be subjected to such psychological evaluation, and whether such a process was consistent with the approach towards a child, as mandated by such law.
Facts of the Case
The parties entered into a matrimonial bond in 2015 and moved to the United States, where their daughter was born in 2016. It was alleged by the appellant that she was subjected to domestic violence, and that the child was sexually abused by the respondent.
Following an incident in 2019, the appellant returned to India with the child and initiated divorce proceedings alongwith criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act.
During the procedure as to custody, the respondent sought visitation rights and requested that the child should be evaluated via appointment of an expert. This request was rejected by the Family Court, which observed that serious allegations were pending, and that such an exercise could affect the welfare of the child.
This order was challenged by the respondent before the Bombay High Court. Initially, appointment of a single independent expert was directed by the High Court. However, this direction was later modified and four experts were appointed.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
- Whether the welfare of the child should remain the paramount consideration when it comes to custody-related proceedings.
- Whether frequent psychological evaluations by multiple experts are compatible with the child-friendly framework under the POCSO Act.
- Whether a panel of experts suggested by one parent affects the neutrality of the evaluation process of a child.
Decision
The appeals were partly allowed by the Supreme Court and the directions issued by the High Court were modified.
It was observed by the Court that the dignity, emotional security, welfare, and psychological well-being of a child must remain the paramount consideration when it comes to proceedings involving minors. It was also noted that multiple interactions with different experts may expose a child to emotional burden and risk of trauma.
Accordingly, the Family Court was directed by the Court to first obtain an independent psychological assessment of both the parents. The expert must also consult the existing therapist of the child who understands her emotional condition, before deciding whether any further assessment of the child is required.
It was clarified by the Court that if an evaluation of the child becomes important, it should be conducted by a single child psychologist appointed by the Court. This must be undertaken with minimum interaction and only when genuinely required.
Emphasising a child-friendly approach, the Supreme Court held that judicial proceedings should not become a source of distress for a child and must always be guided by proper consideration of the welfare of the child as well as best interests.
