Kerala High Court: In a petition challenging the Family Court’s decision, which found that the mother was suffering from psychiatric disorders and granted permanent child custody to the father, the Division Bench of Justices Devan Ramachandran and M.B. Snehalatha, JJ. while setting aside the impugned orders, observed that postpartum depression, while common in some women, is typically temporary and does not persist indefinitely. The Bench emphasized that alleging that the mother was still suffering from postpartum depression and was unwilling to nurse the child must be supported by cogent and reliable evidence.
The petitioner is the former wife of the respondent, 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 husband filed for permanent custody of the child.
The Family Court allowed the aforementioned application, prima facie finding that the wife is suffering from psychiatric disorders.
The wife assailed the Family Court order on the ground that the assumption of the 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 where the child is still nursing, requiring him to be breastfed; and hence that removing him from his mother would cause him severe trauma and stress.
The husband asserted that the wife is suffering from deep Postpartum Disorder and shows no affinity to the child.
The Court noted that the medical records relied by the husband were of 2023, immediately after the wife 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.
The Court mentioned that as per settled scientific studies and assessments, 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 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.
The Court noted that in the previous order on the wife’s demand, it ordered her medical examination.
After taking noted of the report by the Department of Psychiatry, Government Medical College, the Court observed that the presumption of the Family Court regarding the alleged psychiatric issues of the wife cannot be found favour with, at least as of now, without further evidence and assessment.
Thus, the Court set aside the family Court order finding that the mother is suffering from psychiatric disorders and the order granting custody of the child to the father.
The Court clarified that the evaluation of the wife by the Government Medical College is only for the Court’s assessment, and the parties are at liberty to invoke the remedies available to them, when the matter is finally disposed of by the Family Court.
The Court further permitted the husband to move the Family Court if there is a change of circumstances in future, or if the husband is to believe that further orders are required.
[Xxxxx v Xxxx , 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 6571, decided on 08-11-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: M.G.Sreejith ,Vidyajith M., Bincy Jose Rojin Devassy
For Respondent: Kalam Pasha B., Vishakha J, Hasna Ashraf, Juvyria A.A., Sri P M Shameer
