In a significant ruling focusing on the welfare and emotional well-being of children caught in family disputes, the Supreme Court has modified orders passed by the Bombay High Court that had directed a minor girl to be evaluated by a panel of psychological experts.
The Court observed that while expert assistance may sometimes be necessary in custody matters, any process involving a child must be guided by the principles of minimum intrusion, psychological safety and the child’s best interests.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose between Sheetal Vasant Thakur and Chirag Arora, parents of a girl born in the United States in 2016.
According to the mother, she returned to India with the child in December 2019 following serious marital disputes. Over the years, multiple proceedings concerning custody, visitation rights and criminal allegations were initiated before different forums.
The father later sought appointment of an independent child psychology expert to assess the child and explore the possibility of rebuilding his relationship with her. While the Family Court rejected that request, the Bombay High Court directed appointment of an expert and later modified its order to allow a panel of experts. It subsequently constituted a four-member panel for evaluation of the child.
The mother challenged those directions before the Supreme Court.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh stressed that courts dealing with children must adopt a child-centric approach rather than viewing disputes solely through the lens of competing parental rights.
The judgment noted that the case was not merely about visitation or custody but also about how courts should engage with a child who is already facing emotional stress due to parental conflict.
Quoting an earlier principle, the Court observed that legal processes themselves should not become a source of additional trauma for children.
The Bench stated:
“The psychological integrity of the child constitutes an independent and paramount consideration which courts are duty-bound to preserve.”
The Court also highlighted the safeguards contained in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which seek to prevent repeated exposure of children to stressful legal procedures. Although the present dispute was not a criminal trial under POCSO, the Court held that those child-friendly principles offer important guidance in custody-related proceedings as well.
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had not adequately explained why a single independent expert was insufficient or why multiple experts were necessary.
According to the Bench, replacing an “independent expert” with a “panel of experts” was not a minor procedural change. Such a move could potentially expose the child to repeated interactions and evaluations, increasing the risk of emotional distress.
The Court noted that the High Court had failed to examine:
Whether multiple evaluations were necessary;
Whether they would comply with the principle of minimum intrusion;
The possibility of re-traumatisation; and
The overall impact on the child’s welfare.
The Bench further emphasized that psychological evaluations should never become adversarial exercises aimed at validating or disproving allegations made by either parent.
Allowing the appeal in part, the Supreme Court held that the High Court’s orders directing evaluation of the child by a panel of experts could not be implemented in their existing form.
Instead, the Court directed the Family Court to first appoint a psychologist to assess the psychological condition of both parents. The psychologist will also interact with the child’s treating psychologist and submit a report regarding the child’s present condition.
Only after considering that material will the Family Court decide whether any further psychological assessment of the child is required.
The Supreme Court thus modified the High Court’s orders and reiterated that the welfare, dignity and psychological safety of the child must remain the paramount consideration in all proceedings involving minors.
Case Details:
Case Title: Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 18701–18702 of 2024
Judge: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh
Decision Date: 11 June 2026
 Sanjay Prasad, IAS-300x169.webp)
 Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act)-300x169.webp)
