Too hyper technical approach in child custody cases amounts to travesty of justice: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said a far too hyper technical approach in child custody cases would amount to abandoning the doctrine of parens patriae, as it reconsidered its 2024 judgment on handing over custody of 12-year-old to his father.

The court allowed the mother's plea citing medical reports indicating that the child suffered fears with a high risk for separation anxiety disorder.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale emphasised 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.

"Each case has to be dealt with on the basis of its unique facts and take into account any change in circumstances which have an impact on the quality of a child’s upbringing," Justice Vikram Nath wrote in the 31-page judgment for the bench.

In its judgment on July 15, 2025, the court allowed the review petition filed by the woman against 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.

After considering the woman's submission and the medical reports, the bench felt, a far too hyper technical approach in such cases involving custody of child indeed would amount to abandoning the doctrine of parens patriae and will cause travesty of justice.

The woman submitted 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.

The man, for his part, contended the clinical psychologist report cannot be relied upon to decide the mental well-being of the child as the basis of such report is the history, symptoms and information provided by the mother and the stepfather to the concerned doctor.

The bench, however, felt in the wake of new facts, the review petitions was deemed worth entertaining under Article 137 of the Constitution and required indulgence.

After going through the psychological assessment reports, the bench noted that the petitioner-mother remained a great source of comfort and safety to the minor child.

The court also noted the petitioner got remarried when the child was not even four years old. 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, finding that the minor child recognises his mother, half-brother and stepfather to be his immediate family and feels utterly secure in that setting.

The court also said the desire of the biological father of the minor, i.e. the respondent, to become an active part of the child’s life cannot be discounted.

Allowing him regular visitation rights, the bench said, it is also in the best interest of the child to have the presence of both his parents in his life, which ensures a more holistic development and formation of sound emotional connections.