SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(SC) 41

Supreme Court Of India
RUMA PAL AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.
PREMCHAND JINRAJSA SAHUJI (DEAD) BY LRS.- Appellant
Versus
SURENDRA - Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 2501 of 2005,
Decided on April 8, 2005

The court emphasized the importance of considering the psychological impact on the child in custody cases and directed the appointment of a child psychiatrist for assessment.

Headnote:

Custody - Child Welfare - Expert Report on Psychological Impact

Fact of the Case:

The court granted leave and set aside the impugned order, directing the High Court to consider a report from a child psychiatrist before affirming the lower court's decision on custody.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that it would be difficult to obtain the presence of the parties for examination and directed the High Court to appoint a child psychiatrist to assess the potential adverse psychological impact on the child if custody is transferred to the father.

Issues: Custody of the child, Psychological impact assessment

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court should consider a report from a child psychiatrist before affirming the lower court's decision on custody, and the psychiatrist should assess the potential adverse psychological impact on the child if custody is transferred to the father.

Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of without any order as to costs, with the direction for the High Court to appoint a child psychiatrist and expedite the process within two months.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. There has been no response from Dr. Bhagat. In any event, as has been pertinently pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it would be difficult to obtain the presence of the parties from so far as Aurangabad for the purpose of having the girl, who is the subject-matter of the custody petition, examined. In that view of the matter, we dispose of the appeal by setting aside the order impugned only on the ground that the High Court should consider the report of a child psychiatrist before affirming the order of the lower court. The High Court will appoint such doctor as an expert to submit a report giving his/her opinion as to whether, in the given circumstances, there will be an adverse psychological impact on the child if the custody of the child is made over to the father from the relatives of the deceased mother of the child. The psychiatrist should be enabled to take the assistance of any such welfare worker as he/she may desire for the purpose. The parties including the child must appear before such doctor as may be nominated by the High Court as and when required. It is requested that the High Court may expedite the process and, if possible, complete the process within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

3. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of but without any order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top