Courts Must Look Beyond Marital Bitterness in Child Custody Cases: SC

In a child custody dispute arising from a matrimonial conflict, the Supreme Court has upheld the Karnataka High Court’s direction for inpatient evaluation of a minor girl at NIMHANS, Bengaluru, following concerns of parental alienation and hostility displayed by the child towards her father.

A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K Vinod Chandran dismissed a plea filed by the mother challenging the High Court’s order and directed the District Child Protection Officer, along with the mother, to produce the child before NIMHANS on July 4, 2025, at 11:30 AM for admission.

The Top Court clarified that the decision regarding visitation by either parent during the evaluation period would rest with the doctors-in-attendance. A final report is to be submitted to the Karnataka High Court in a sealed cover.

The Bench observed that the case is a "tragic illustration" of a child being caught in a bitter marital conflict. 

“Prima facie, it appears to us that the mother has obstinately deprived the father of the company of their minor child, overreaching orders issued by the High Court of Karnataka,” Court observed.

Brief Background

The matter stems from a Guardian and Wards petition filed by the father seeking custody of his daughter, born in 2014. The couple married in 2011 and separated in 2021, following which the mother filed a criminal case under Section 498A IPC. The child was granted to the mother's custody with supervised visitation rights for the father.

Subsequent developments revealed repeated defiance of court orders by the mother, including non-compliance with visitation directives and disappearance from jurisdiction with the child. The child, during court interactions, reportedly refused to acknowledge her father and displayed aggressive behaviour, which the courts viewed as possible evidence of “tutoring” and “parental alienation.”

On April 22, 2025, the child asserted that she "is not an object and cannot be compelled to meet the father," prompting the High Court to seek mental health evaluation by NIMHANS. A report submitted after evaluation on May 5–7, 2025, recommended inpatient observation for four to six weeks, which was resisted by the mother.

Observation by the Court

Emphasising that the inpatient stay is not for treatment or on a finding of mental illness, the Supreme Court said the aim is to understand the child’s behavioural issues and resistance towards the father.

“The medical certificate produced by the mother itself indicates that the child is under stress and has anxiety problems, more due to the estranged relationship of her parents,” the Court noted.

Reproaching the mother for consistent non-compliance, the bench said,

“We have detailed the facts regarding the various orders passed and their non-compliance only to highlight the adamant attitude displayed by the mother in somehow depriving the father of the company of the minor child.”

Reinforcing the role of courts in such sensitive matters, the bench observed:

“In exercise of the parens patriae jurisdiction, the courts are often attempted to be misled by vicious accusations made by the spouses against each other… The judicial mind must rise above such accusations… and keep in mind the paramount consideration which is the welfare of the child; always, ideally served by the company of both the parents and their families.”

The Top Court concluded that the High Court had shown restraint and continued to prioritise the child’s welfare, even when faced with repeated defiance. The inpatient evaluation, it held, was necessary to “find out the mind of the child” and aid the process of reconciliation with the father.

Case Title: Amrita Sinha v. Shwetabh Sahay