Child Welfare First: Supreme Court Says Psychological Evaluation Cannot Be Routine in Custody, Access Cases

The Supreme Court on June 11, 2026 said that in custody and access disputes involving a child who is also an alleged victim under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, psychological evaluation must be strictly guided by the child's welfare, emotional security and dignity. Such evaluations cannot be used as an adversarial tool to support or vindicate the claims of either parent, Court said.

"Psychological or psychiatric evaluation of a child victim shall not be directed as a matter of routine merely because issues of custody, visitation or parental access arise between litigating parents/relatives," Court emphasised.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh set aside a Bombay High Court order directing the psychological evaluation of a minor by a four-member panel of experts.

Court examined the principles governing when and how courts may order psychological or psychiatric evaluation of child victims in custody and visitation matters. It stressed the need for neutral experts, avoidance of repeated evaluations and strict adherence to the child-friendly framework envisaged under the POCSO Act.

The Bench observed that emotional stability, psychological security, dignity and mental health are vital components of a child's welfare.

"Consequently, any such factors which may impede and seen to be disruptive to the welfare of the child must be abjured while considering the welfare of the child. Any process which leads to the detriment of the welfare of the child must be avoided by the court while passing orders relating to the custody/visitation rights claimed by any of the parents," Court said.

The Bench underscored that courts must remain conscious not only of the legal consequences of their orders but also of the impact that court-directed processes may have on the child's welfare.

Who should conduct psychological evaluation in child custody cases?

Referring to the Family Courts Act, 1984, Court noted that while the law does not prohibit seeking assistance from a person related to the parties, it is ultimately for the court to determine the steps necessary to ascertain the child's best interests and pass appropriate orders, particularly in custody matters where it exercises its parens patriae jurisdiction.

"Hence, it would be desirable for the court to appoint a neutral expert/psychologist, who may, however, interact with the experts nominated by the parties if the court deems appropriate," the Bench said.

The case

The case before the Supreme Court arose from a bitter custody and visitation dispute between estranged parents. The mother alleged that the father had sexually abused the child while the family was living in the United States. Criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act are pending against the father, who has denied the allegations.

The father had sought appointment of an independent child psychology expert to assess the child and facilitate restoration of his relationship with her. While the Family Court rejected the request in 2022, citing the pending POCSO case and the child's ongoing therapy, the Bombay High Court later directed appointment of an expert and subsequently expanded the process into a panel of experts.

But the Supreme Court modified the two Bombay High Court orders and remitted the matter to the family court for fresh consideration in light of detailed guidelines laid down by it. Court directed that the family court would appoint a psychologist to interact with both parents and assess their present mental and psychological condition, particularly that of the mother, who currently has custody of the child.

Court further clarified that both parents would remain free to approach the Family Court for modification of custody-related orders that may be passed from time to time and for any other appropriate directions required until the proceedings reach their logical conclusion.

Case Title: Sheetal Vasant Thakur Vs Chirag Arora

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh

Date of Judgment: June 11, 2026