Supreme Court Modifies Child Custody Order Based on Child’s Preference: Selvaraj vs. Revathi (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 6 December 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 1054

Judges: Vikram Nath, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a child’s preference significantly influence a court’s decision in a custody battle? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this delicate issue in a case involving a long-standing dispute between a father and a mother over their child’s custody. The court, while acknowledging the importance of both parents in a child’s life, ultimately prioritized the child’s expressed wishes and well-being in its ruling.

The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal. The judgment was authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal.

Case Background

The case revolves around a matrimonial dispute between Selvaraj (the appellant) and Revathi (the respondent). They married on May 16, 2010, and had a child, Manish, on February 18, 2011. Subsequently, disputes arose, leading to the appellant filing a divorce petition in 2014. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking maintenance and interim custody of the child. The Magistrate initially granted interim custody to the respondent on May 22, 2014. The appellant’s subsequent applications to revoke this order were dismissed by both the Magistrate and the Principal District Judge, Pudukottai. The High Court upheld these orders, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai, initially directed the appellant to hand over the child’s custody to the respondent on May 22, 2014. The appellant’s application seeking revocation of this order was dismissed on November 20, 2014. The Principal District Judge, Pudukottai, also dismissed the appellant’s appeal on January 31, 2017. The High Court upheld these orders in a revision petition filed by the appellant, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, specifically Section 12, which deals with applications for protection orders and other reliefs, including custody. The court also considered the paramount importance of the child’s welfare in custody matters.

Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, states:

“12. Application to Magistrate.—(1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act: Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider. (2) The relief sought for under sub-section (1) may include a relief for issuance of an order for payment of compensation or damages without prejudice to the right of such person to institute proceedings for the recovery of compensation or damages under any other law for the time being in force. (3) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed or as nearly as possible thereto. (4) The Magistrate shall fix the first date of hearing, which shall not ordinarily be beyond three days from the date of receipt of the application by the court. (5) The Magistrate shall endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub-section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing.”

Arguments

The arguments presented by the parties were not explicitly detailed in the judgment. However, it can be inferred that the appellant argued against the transfer of custody to the respondent, while the respondent sought custody of the child. The primary focus of the court was on the child’s welfare and preference, rather than the specific arguments of each party.

The court also considered the report submitted by Ms. V. Mohana, learned senior counsel, who interacted with the child and parents. This report highlighted the child’s reluctance to go with his mother and his preference to stay with his father.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the core issue was whether the custody of the child should be transferred to the mother, considering the child’s expressed unwillingness and the paramount importance of the child’s welfare.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any specific cases or legal provisions other than Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court’s decision was primarily based on the specific facts of the case, the child’s preference, and the principle of the child’s welfare being paramount.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the child’s expressed unwillingness to go with his mother and the paramount importance of the child’s welfare. The court acknowledged that while it is ideal for a child to have the love and affection of both parents, the specific circumstances of this case warranted a modification of the custody order. The court also took into account the report of Ms. V. Mohana, learned senior counsel, who interacted with the child and parents, and the child’s consistent residence with his father since birth.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The Supreme Court prioritized the child’s preference and welfare in modifying the custody order.
• ✓ While both parents’ love and affection are important, the child’s expressed wishes can be a significant factor in custody decisions.
• ✓ The court allowed the mother to have visitation rights and phone calls with the child, ensuring some level of interaction.
• ✓ The court emphasized the importance of mediation and counseling for the child, to be conducted at a place other than the court complex, considering the child’s aversion to visiting the court.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the child would continue to reside with the father. The mother was granted visitation rights and the ability to communicate with the child via phone. The court also suggested that the Mediation Centre attached to the High Court facilitate an interaction between the child and a counselor at a place other than the Court Complex.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in matters of child custody, the welfare of the child is paramount, and the child’s preference, especially when the child is of sufficient maturity, should be given significant weight. This case reinforces the principle that while both parents play a crucial role in a child’s life, the child’s best interests must guide the court’s decisions. There is no specific change in the previous position of law, but this case highlights the importance of considering the child’s voice in custody disputes.

Conclusion

In the case of Selvaraj vs. Revathi, the Supreme Court modified the High Court’s order, allowing the child to remain with the father, while granting the mother visitation rights and phone access. The decision underscores the importance of the child’s welfare and preference in custody matters, particularly when the child is mature enough to express their wishes. The court’s approach highlights a child-centric perspective in family law disputes.