IMPORTANT POINT
Custody of Child – Family Court cannot pronounce on mental condition of mother of child without cogent and reliable evidence.

JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J.—This petitioner challenges Exts.P8, P13 & P14 orders of the learned Family Court, Mavelikkara.

2. The petitioner is the former wife of the respondent herein and they have a child aged 1½ years in their union. The controversy between the parties is with respect to the custody of the said child; and it transpires that the respondent-husband filed I.A.No.2 of 2024 and I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.P(G&W) No.64 of 2024 - filed by him earlier before the learned Family Court, seeking permanent custody of the child – seeking her interim custody and also to modify Ext.P3 order passed by the learned Court on 22.05.2024, whereby, he was given overnight interim custody of the child on certain days.

3. The learned Family Court, Mavelikkara, allowed the aforementioned applications through Ext.P8 order, prima facie finding that the mother is suffering from psychiatric disorders; against which, she filed I.A.No.7 of 2024 seeking a review, which has been dismissed through Ext.P13, and consequently, the learned Court passed Ext.P14 order, directing a Woman Police Officer to take custody of the child and to hand him over to the father.

4. The petitioner – mother assails all the afore orders on the ground that the assumption of the learned Family Court that, she is suffering from psychiatric disorders, is unfortunate and without any factual basis; and thus prays that all of them be set aside, particularly because, the child is unwilling to go to his father, being very young. She also has a case that the child is still nursing, requiring to be breastfed; and hence that to remove him from his mother would cause her severe trauma and stress.

5. However, the case of the respondent is to the contrary. He asserts that the petitioner – mother is suffering from deep Postpartum Disorder and shows no affinity to the child. He relies on certain documents which he had produced before the learned Family Court in substantiation, particularly Ext.P9 Medical Report.

6. We have heard Sri.M.G.Sreejith – learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Kalam Pasha B. - learned counsel for the respondent.

7. As we have already said above, the bone of contention of the parties – in a manner of speaking - is the Medical Records of the petitioner-wife, which have been produced as Exts.P6 and P7. When one examines the said records – even assuming that legal validity can be attached to it – it is luculent that they are of February 2023, immediately after the petitioner gave birth to the child; and it only indicates that she was suffering from postpartum depression, thus showing some alienation to the baby at that time.

8. However, it must be borne in mind that, it is now well settled through scientific studies and assessments, that postpartum depression is rather common in some women and that this is not a situation that will continue forever, but most of the time being temporary, for a short duration. To allege that the petitioner-wife is still suffering from postpartum depression and is even unwilling to nurse the child, certainly requires to be established through cogent and reliable methods; but, in our firm view, could not have been so declared by the learned Family Court, as has been done in Ext.P8 order, merely based on the afore records.

9. That said, it is interesting that, when the parties appeared before us on 04.11.2024, along with the child, the petitioner-mother offered and insisted that she be ordered to be evaluated medically by this Court, so that she will be able to substantiate that she is not suffering from any psychiatric or cognitive impairments as of now. We, therefore, indited an order, with the consent of both sides, on the afore date, which is as under:

Sri. M.G. Sreejith – learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, asserted that his client is without any cognitive or psychological impairment and that she is willing to have herself assessed by a competitive Medical Board for this purpose. He added that this offer is not b