Child Victim in Custody Dispute Cannot Be Subjected to Repeated Psychological Evaluation Without Necessity: Supreme Court

Case Name: Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora

Citation: 2026 INSC 638

Date of Judgment/Order: 11 June 2026

Bench: Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J. and N. V. Anjaria, J.

Held: The Supreme Court held that in custody, visitation and parental access disputes involving a child who is also an alleged victim under the POCSO Act, the welfare, dignity, emotional security and psychological well-being of the child must remain the paramount consideration. The Court held that psychological or psychiatric evaluation of such a child cannot be ordered as a routine measure merely because parental access is claimed, and repeated, overlapping or multi-layered evaluations must ordinarily be avoided unless compelling reasons are specifically recorded. The Court further held that where evaluation is necessary, it should normally be conducted by one independent, court-appointed and trauma-informed child psychologist or similar professional, and constitution of a panel of experts should remain an exceptional course requiring clear reasons and safeguards.

Summary: The dispute arose between estranged parents concerning custody and access to their minor daughter, who was alleged to have been sexually abused by the respondent-father and was also the subject of pending POCSO proceedings. The mother had returned to India with the child after alleged domestic violence and abuse in the USA, and criminal proceedings were later registered under the IPC and POCSO Act. In access proceedings, the father sought appointment of an independent psychiatric expert to evaluate the child, her living situation and both parents for facilitating reconnection. The Family Court rejected the request, noting serious POCSO allegations, absence of changed circumstances, ongoing therapy and the risk of harm to the child. The Bombay High Court initially directed appointment of an independent child psychology expert, but later modified the direction from “expert” to “panel of experts” and eventually constituted a four-member panel, including names substantially suggested by the father and experts situated outside the local jurisdiction. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had failed to record reasons justifying multiple experts, failed to define their roles or safeguards, and inadequately appreciated the risk of re-traumatisation and secondary victimisation in the adversarial context of pending sexual abuse allegations.

Decision: The Supreme Court modified the impugned orders dated 27.04.2023 and 07.12.2023 and remitted the matter to the Family Court for fresh orders in light of its child-centric directions. The Court directed that the Family Court must consider the child’s welfare, dignity and psychological safety as paramount, adopt minimum intrusion and minimum exposure, avoid repeated or multi-layered evaluations unless strictly necessary, ensure institutional neutrality of any expert appointed, and consider the status of the pending POCSO proceedings before passing any order on visitation or custodial access. The parties were given liberty to approach the Family Court for appropriate modification of orders from time to time, and both parties were directed to apprise the Family Court of the status of the POCSO proceedings, which would have significant bearing on any order concerning visitation or custody.