Latest news with #PrasannaBVarale
News18
17-07-2025
- News18
'Best Interests Of The Child': SC Reverses Custody Ruling Based On Psychological Needs
Last Updated: The Supreme Court reversed its verdict, restoring custody of a 12-year-old boy to his mother after new evaluations showed him to be distressed due to transfer of custody to father In a significant reversal of its earlier verdict, the Supreme Court has accepted a review petition filed by a woman against its August 22, 2024 judgment that had granted permanent custody of her 12-year-old son to her former husband. This decision comes after new psychological evaluations revealed that the child was suffering from severe mental distress following the transfer of custody. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale invoked the court's parens patriae jurisdiction, stressing that in custody matters intersecting with constitutional review standards, overly technical interpretations must give way to the evolving and sensitive needs of the child. The judges observed that 'a far too hyper-technical approach shall indeed amount to abandoning the doctrine of parens patriae and cause travesty of justice", reiterating that the guiding principle in all custody cases remains the best interest of the child. They held that this standard is 'ever-evolving and cannot be confined in a straitjacket". The mother had remarried, converted to Christianity, and planned to relocate the child to Malaysia. The earlier judgment that transferred custody to the biological father had relied on traditional assumptions favouring the father's position. New facts on record, however, prompted judicial reconsideration. The petitioner presented psychological assessments from Christian Medical College (CMC), Vellore, indicating that the child was experiencing clinical anxiety and symptoms of separation anxiety disorder. It was noted that the child had never spent a night apart from his mother, and the sudden transfer of custody had caused intense emotional distress. The mother further argued that the child views her husband from the second marriage as a father figure and shares a close bond with his half-brother. She stressed that their family unit has been stable for years and that disrupting this arrangement would irreversibly damage the child's mental health. The court acknowledged these reports and noted that the child finds 'calm and refuge" in his mother's presence and considers his stepfather an essential paternal figure. It also recognised that the stepfather had made committed representations regarding the child's education and welfare and was financially capable of supporting the child. Conversely, the biological father challenged the hospital reports, claiming that they were based on biased narratives provided by the mother and her husband. He accused the woman of deliberately keeping the child away from him between 2016 and 2019. The court, however, observed that these allegations did not diminish the current psychological impact on the child or negate the strength of his emotional ecosystem. The bench underscored that the father's right to parenthood, while important, could not override the child's well-being. 'It would be extremely harsh and insensitive for the courts of law to expect the child to accept and flourish in an alien household where his own biological father is akin to a stranger," the court observed. Restoring permanent custody to the mother, the court recognised the father's right to build a bond with his son. Visitation rights were granted, allowing him to meet the child regularly. The court stressed that any relationship must evolve organically, over time, with emotional patience and responsibility. The bench cautioned the father against making 'crude or insensitive remarks" and said no bond can be imposed abruptly. 'A father-son relation can only be fostered patiently over years, marked by continued presence and nurtured with love, care and empathy," it said. The court also imposed restrictions on international relocation. The mother cannot permanently move the child outside India but will be permitted to take him abroad during Onam, Christmas, and for half of his summer vacation. It reminded both parents of their constitutional and moral duty to protect the child's psychological and emotional well-being. The judgment encouraged effective communication between them and urged mutual respect despite their personal differences. 'Parents must not allow their bitter past to impede the emotional health of the child," the court cautioned. The judgment concluded by urging the mother to facilitate the child's acceptance of both parents for a balanced emotional upbringing. In a case blending constitutional interpretation with child psychology, the court reaffirmed its commitment to prioritising welfare over formality. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : child custody view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
News18
17-07-2025
- General
- News18
'Best Interest': SC Reverses Order On Child Custody After He Develops Stress In Mother's Absence
The Supreme Court reversed its earlier custody order and granted the child's custody to the mother, citing concerns over the child's psychological wellbeing. The Supreme Court reversed one of its previous orders wherein it granted the custody of a child to his biological father, and handed the child over to his mother, in a case of marital separation. This came as reports showed the child had developed anxiety and distress in the absence of his mother. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale considered a review petition by the mother, and stated that its review jurisdiction is limited and can only be invoked on grounds such as discovery of new and important evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. As the court granted the mother the custody of her child, the bench cited serious concerns over the child's psychological health following the earlier custody decision. 'There is no room for doubt that in matters of custody, the best interest of the child remains at the heart of judicial adjudication and a factor adversely impacting the child's welfare undeniably becomes a matter of such nature that has a direct bearing on the decision with the possibility to change it," the court observed. 'Therefore, in the wake of new facts as detailed above, the review petitions at hand are deemed worth entertaining under Article 137 of the Constitution of India and require indulgence of this court", it added. The petitioner-mother and respondent-father were married in 2011, and a son was born in 2012. The couple began living separately and entered into an agreement to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent and agreed that the mother would have custody of the child, while the father would have visitation rights twice a month. A divorce decree was granted by the Family Court, Attingal, on June 26, 2015. The petitioner remarried and had a child from her second marriage. She lived in Thiruvananthapuram with her new husband and children. According to the respondent, he was unaware of the child's and petitioner's whereabouts from 2016 to 2019, and it was only when the petitioner contacted him in October 2019 to get signatures for the child's international travel that he learned of the remarriage and intent to relocate the child to Malaysia. Upon learning of the proposed relocation and change in the child's religion, the respondent approached the Family Court, seeking permanent custody. The petitioner filed a counterclaim seeking permission to take the child abroad. On October 31, 2022, the Family Court granted permanent custody and guardianship to the petitioner and allowed her to take the child abroad during holidays, while granting the father limited visitation rights. It found that the child had lived exclusively with the petitioner since he was 11 months old and viewed her as his primary caregiver. The psychological reports showed he found comfort in her presence and saw her new husband and younger sibling as part of his immediate family unit. The petitioner also alleged that after the judgment, the father made threatening comments to the child about separating him from his mother, worsening his psychological condition. Four subsequent psychological reports indicated continuing anxiety and distress caused by the fear of custody change. The Court noted that even though the respondent-father wished to reconnect, the child had not spent even a night with him and saw him as a stranger. It held that shifting custody would destabilise the child and cause further trauma. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
NDTV
17-07-2025
- Health
- NDTV
Supreme Court Reverses Child Custody Order After 12-Year-Old's Breakdown
New Delhi: Court judgments on a child's custody in matrimonial dispute cases cannot be "rigid" and "final", and courts are entitled to alter rulings in the best interest of the minor, the Supreme Court has said, reversing its order to hand over a 12-year-old boy's custody to his father. The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale noted that the custody order had a "calamitous effect" on the child's health, and he had been suffering from anxiety. According to the judgment, the child's parents married in 2011, and he was born in 2012. The couple separated a year later, and the infant's custody was handed over to the mother. The mother remarried in 2016. Her second husband had two children from his earlier marriage, and the new couple had a child of their own. The father said he was unaware of the child's whereabouts till 2019, when the mother contacted him for some paperwork because she and her second husband had decided to relocate to Malaysia with the children. The father also said that he came to know that the child's religion had been changed from Hindu to Christian without his consent or knowledge. The father then approached a family court for the child's custody, but got no relief. He challenged this in the High Court, which granted him the child's custody. The mother moved the Supreme Court against this order, but the top court dismissed her appeal in August last year. The mother approached the court with a fresh prayer, contending that the custody change order "caused an immense negative impact on the mental health of the child". Her arguments were backed by a clinical psychologist's report, stating that the minor child has a high risk for separation anxiety disorder. Custody orders, the court said, cannot be made "rigid" and courts can "mould" them in the best interest of the minor. "The core and inalienable standard is the paramount consideration of the child's welfare, which is affected by an array of factors, is ever evolving and cannot be confined in a straitjacket," it said. The court noted that the couple separated when the child was 11 months old. Since then, the child has met his biological father only a handful of times and has been away from his mother. "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. It is contended that this is especially so in light of the fact that, since the respondent did not avail visitation rights since 2014, the child has not had the opportunity to form a bond with his biological father," the court said in its order. The court noted that reports of the child's psychological assessment have indicated him to be undergoing significant anxiety, difficulty in coping with emotions and separation anxiety due to the looming threat of custody change. "It has been advised throughout these reports by experienced psychologists and psychiatrists at CMC, Vellore, to provide the child with a stable and emotionally supportive environment during this time of distress. Further, it has been strongly cautioned that any disruption in the existing support systems can further deteriorate the emotional well-being of the child," the court said. Noting that the boy is at the cusp of adolescence, the court said the child has been exclusively with his mother since he was 11 months old and accepts her to be his "primary caregiver and support system. "In fact, a perusal of the psychological assessment reports brings forth that in moments of distress and heightened emotions, the child seeks refuge in his mother's arms and finds her presence to be calming." The court also noted that the mother remarried when the child was not even four. "The fortunate repercussion has been that the child, ever since his preschool days, recognizes his stepfather to be a part of the family and considers him to be an essential paternal figure in his life. It has come on record that the stepfather has also openly extended a shield of affection and care towards the minor and has undertaken before various courts a commitment to provide an educationally sound upbringing to the child to the best of his financial capabilities," the order said. The court also noted that the 12-year-old perceives the child born to his mother from her second marriage as his sibling and "shows a great amount of fondness for his younger brother". "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. There is nothing on record to reflect that the petitioner's subsequent marriage or the birth of the second child has, in any manner, altered her level of motherly devotion to the minor in question... Therefore, in our considered opinion, there is nothing on record to draw an adverse inference against the current family setup of the child, merely on account of it being a modern rendition of familial concept," the court said. The court, however, acknowledged the biological father's desire to play an active role in the child's life and directed the mother to facilitate visitations. "Before parting with the judgment, we find it relevant to remind both the parents of their primary responsibility towards child's nurturing, which can be achieved by effective communication and smooth execution of the above arrangement, while exhibiting mutual respect. The parties are advised not to let their bitter past experience impede the child's well-being, especially given the sensitive emotional state of the tender child. The petitioner (mother) is advised to encourage the child to accept and welcome both the parents in his life for a well-rounded development," the court said. The court also noted that mother's allegation that the father threatened the child with separating him from his mother, causing further deterioration in his mental health. The father denied these allegations. The court noted that the father cannot expect the child to develop a parental bond with him abruptly after such a long absence. "A father-son relation can only be fostered patiently over the course of years, marked by his continued presence and responsibility-bearing attitude, and nurtured with boundless love, care and empathy," the court said.
News18
26-06-2025
- News18
'No Relief To Bus Driver For Causing Death Of 7 Persons': SC Declines Plea Against Conviction
Last Updated: The court directed the petitioner to surrender within a period of four weeks. The Supreme Court has declined to consider a plea by a man who was convicted for driving a bus in a rash and negligent manner resulting into death of seven people. A bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B Varale said the court was not inclined to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts recorded in the impugned judgments convicting the petitioner, Hanumanth Achari and affirming his conviction. The petitioner stood convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 304A, 279, 337,338 IPC and Section 183 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. He was awarded sentence for one year rigorous imprisonment on the count of Section 304A IPC and one month each for other counts under the Indian Penal code. The petitioner challenged the validity of the April 15, 2025 judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court's circuit bench at Dharwad. 'We have heard the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioner, and have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and the material placed on record. On the fateful day, the petitioner was driving bus of the KSRTC which collided with the tempo trax vehicle, resulting into death of 7 persons and injuries being caused to other passengers," the bench said. The court noted the first Appellate Court and the High Court have appreciated and re-appreciated the evidence and have reached to the conclusion that it was the petitioner, who drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, which caused the accident and resulted into loss of 7 precious human lives. 'Thus, we are not inclined to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts recorded in the impugned judgments convicting the petitioner as above and affirming his conviction. The Special Leave Petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed," the bench said. The court also dismissed the application filed by him from exemption from surrender. It directed the petitioner to surrender within a period of four weeks, failing which the Trial Court would take appropriate steps to have him arrested for serving out the sentences.
News18
25-06-2025
- News18
Recovery Of Bloodstained Weapon With Victim's Blood Group Not Enough For Murder Conviction: SC
Last Updated: The court also found that, as far as the theory of motive was concerned, the evidence in the case before it seemed to be very vague and vacillating The Supreme Court has said that mere recovery of a blood-stained weapon, even bearing the same blood group as the victim, would not be sufficient to prove the charge of murder. A bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B Varale dismissed an appeal filed by the Rajasthan government assailing the judgment of May 15, 2015, rendered by a division bench of the High Court, which accepted the appeal preferred by Hanuman, the respondent herein, and acquitted him. The SC also pointed out that the law is well settled by a catena of decisions of the court that in an appeal against acquittal, interference can only be made if the only possible view based on the evidence points to the guilt of the accused and rules out his innocence. The High Court has set aside the judgment of December 10, 2008, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Kota, which had convicted the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs 100. The respondent was charged with the murder of one Chotu Lal, which took place on the intervening night of March 1-2, 2007. The FIR was filed against unknown assailants. The respondent was, however, arraigned in the case on the basis of suspicion and circumstantial evidence. The prosecution claimed the presence of circumstantial evidence in the form of motive, alleging the respondent had 'an evil eye on the wife of the deceased", recovery of the weapon of offence and the FSL report indicating that the blood group on the weapon matched with the blood group of the deceased (B+). In the appeal filed by the accused against his conviction, the High Court held that the prosecution could not prove the complete chain of circumstances required to bring home the guilt of the accused in the case, which was based entirely on circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, the High Court proceeded to acquit the respondent accused of the charge. Having heard the extensive arguments advanced by counsel representing the parties and gone through the impugned judgment and the material placed on record, the bench said, 'We find that the incriminating circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, i.e., the motive and the recovery of the bloodstained weapon, even taken in conjunction cannot constitute the complete chain of incriminating circumstances required to bring home the charges against the accused". The High Court seems to have overlooked the FSL report, which was stressed upon by counsel for the appellant, the SC noted. 'However, in our view, even if the FSL report is taken into account, then also, other than the fact that the weapon recovered at the instance of the accused tested positive for the same blood group as that of the deceased (B+), nothing much turns on the said report," the bench opined. The SC pointed out that the court in the case of Raja Naykar Vs State of Chhattisgarh (2024) held that mere recovery of a bloodstained weapon, even bearing the same blood group as the victim, would not be sufficient to prove the charge of murder. Besides, the bench also found that as far as the theory of motive was concerned, the evidence in that regard seemed to be very vague and vacillating. 'In the present case, we are duly satisfied that the prosecution failed to lead clinching evidence to bring home the charges. The only possible view is the one taken by the High Court, i.e., the innocence of the accused," the bench said. The court finally held that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. It, thus, dismissed the appeal as lacking merit. First Published:
