Child Custody Not Rigid, Says SC; Reverses Order

• Supreme Court (SC) reversed its own custody order, returning a 12-year-old boy to his mother.
• SC stated child custody judgments are not “rigid” and can be altered for the child’s best interest.

GG News Bureau
New Delhi, 17th July: The Supreme Court has declared that court judgments on child custody in matrimonial disputes cannot be “rigid” or “final,” asserting that courts retain the right to alter rulings based on the minor’s best interests. This significant pronouncement came as the apex court reversed its earlier decision, returning custody of a 12-year-old boy to his mother after finding the previous order had a “calamitous effect” on the child’s health, causing him severe anxiety.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale noted that the parents married in 2011, and the child was born in 2012. The couple separated a year later, with the infant’s custody initially granted to the mother. The mother remarried in 2016 and subsequently had another child with her second husband, who also had two children from a previous marriage, forming a blended family.

The father claimed he was unaware of the child’s whereabouts until 2019, when the mother contacted him for paperwork related to their planned relocation to Malaysia. He also alleged that the child’s religion had been changed from Hindu to Christian without his consent or knowledge. The father then sought custody from a family court but was denied relief. He challenged this in the High Court, which granted him custody. The mother appealed to the Supreme Court, but her initial plea was dismissed in August last year.

“Calamitous Effect” on Child’s Mental Health
The mother approached the Supreme Court again with a fresh prayer, contending that the custody change order had “caused an immense negative impact on the mental health of the child.” Her arguments were strongly supported by a clinical psychologist’s report, which indicated that the minor child faced a “high risk for separation anxiety disorder.”

The Supreme Court emphasized that custody orders cannot be “rigid” and must be “moulded” to serve the child’s paramount welfare, which is an “ever evolving” standard influenced by many factors. The court highlighted that the couple separated when the child was only 11 months old, and he had met his biological father only a few times since then. “In such circumstances, taking the drastic step of changing custody would amount to upsetting his familiar environment and taking a huge leap over the usually accepted norm of gradual modification in cases of custody,” the bench observed. It also noted that the father had not exercised visitation rights since 2014, preventing the child from forming a bond with him.

Prioritizing Stability and Existing Bonds
The court extensively reviewed reports from experienced psychologists and psychiatrists at CMC, Vellore, which indicated the child’s significant anxiety and difficulty coping with emotions due to the looming threat of custody change. These reports strongly advised providing the child with a “stable and emotionally supportive environment” and cautioned against any disruption to his existing support systems.

Noting that the boy is at the “cusp of adolescence,” the court recognized that he has been exclusively with his mother since he was 11 months old and considers her his “primary caregiver and support system.” The judgment highlighted that the child finds refuge and calming presence in his mother during distress. Furthermore, the court noted that the mother remarried when the child was not yet four, leading him to recognize his stepfather as an “essential paternal figure” and his half-brother as a cherished sibling. “Therefore, it becomes quite evident that the minor child recognizes his mother, half-brother and stepfather to be his immediate family and feels utterly secure in that setting,” the court stated, concluding there was “nothing on record to draw an adverse inference against the current family setup.”

While reversing the custody order, the Supreme Court acknowledged the biological father’s desire for an active role in the child’s life and directed the mother to facilitate visitations. The court urged both parents to ensure effective communication and mutual respect for the child’s well-being, emphasizing that a father-son bond must be fostered patiently over years, with continued presence, responsibility, love, care, and empathy. The court also noted the mother’s allegation that the father threatened the child with separation, which the father denied.