CASE NAME: Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora
CASE NUMBER: SLP(C) No. 18701-18702 of 2024
COURT: Supreme Court of India
DATE: June 11th, 2026
QUORUM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
FACTS
The parties married in 2015 and moved to the USA, where their daughter was born in 2016. The appellant (mother) alleged that the respondent (father) subjected her to physical abuse and the child to sexual abuse when the child was approximately two years old. Following a domestic assault incident in 2019, the appellant returned to India with the child. Following this, a writ of Habeas Corpus was filed by the father and multiple FIRs registered against him under the IPC and the POCSO Act. The current appeal arises from the Bombay High Court’s orders in 2023, which, upon the father’s application for specialists in “parental alienation syndrome”, gave the order to substitute a single appointed psychologist with a panel of experts to evaluate the child for re-establishing a connection with the father. The High Court then constituted a four-member panel which included experts from outside the jurisdiction as well as one based in the USA. The mother challenged these orders while claiming that the child would suffer further traumatization due to these repeated assessments.
ISSUES
- Whether the multiple psychological evaluations of a child victim under POCSO risk causing secondary victimization and re-traumatization?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Sections 24, 33(5), 36 and 39 of POCSO Act – prosecution of offences related to child sexual abuse and penetrative sexual assault, procedures for child’s statement, prevention of re-traumatization and safeguards for the child’s welfare
- Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act – dissolution of marriage
- Section 151 CPC – powers of the court in child visitation disputes and appointment of a psychiatric expert
- Section 12 of Family Courts Act – enlisting services of medical or welfare experts in family welfare
- Case Laws: Sakshi v. Union of India, Gaurav Nagpal vs. Sumedha Nagpal, Yashita Sahu vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Mausami Moitra Ganguli vs. Jayant Ganguli, Thrity Hoshie Dolikuka v. Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka, Vivek Singh vs. Romani Singh, Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh vs. Sugandhi Aggarwal.
ARGUMENTS
Appellant:
The appellant argued that the High Court’s order to form a panel of experts violated the child’s dignity and psychological well-being. She argued that the child had already interacted with various agencies and that exposure to such a panel would subject her to repetitive and intrusive scrutiny, thereby leading to re-traumatization. Further, she contends that the panel was biased because it was composed of people suggested by the respondent and intended to advance adversarial theories like parental alienation syndrome to rebut the abuse allegations against him.
Respondent:
The father maintained that the POCSO allegations were false due to the ongoing matrimonial disputes. He argued that expert evaluation was necessary to assess the child’s psychological state and facilitate restoration of emotional bonding between them. He justified that the panel should include specialists in child trauma and parental alienation to ensure a comprehensive assessment.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court clarified that it was not dealing with the merits of the sexual abuse allegations and on the issue of psychological evaluation in custody matters, they ruled that the rights of parents are subservient to the welfare and best interest of the child. The court acknowledges that one of the objectives of POCSO act is that children suffering from sexual abuse should not be exposed to further emotional harm. Thus, minimum intrusion to the child’s life is a standard that must be followed by courts when acting as parens patriae for the child and directing any kind of examination.
The court observed that questions related to custody must account for the conduct and mental conditions of the parents as well and not solely the child. They also note that parental alienation syndrome should not be treated as a diagnosable syndrome but as a question of fact concerning alienating behaviours on specific evidence.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme court modified the High court’s orders and directed the Family court to first appoint a psychologist to evaluate the mental condition of both parents and then interact with the child’s current treating psychologist and submit a report to Family court. The court should decide based on this if direct assessment of the child is necessary. If necessary, it must be done by an independent psychologist with minimum interactions possible. The child’s psychological needs can be reviewed periodically as they grow as psychological needs may evolve.
CONCLUSION
The Court concluded by issuing comprehensive guidelines for psychological evaluations to ensure that judicial procedures do not become processes of secondary victimization. The judges also clarified that its observations are not exhaustive as emotional responses vary from child to child and the matter was remitted to the Family court to proceed under these directions.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: MANALI ANAND SAWANT
Read the judgment copy below:
