उच्चतम न्यायालय ने यह निर्णय दिया कि लैंगिक अपराधों से बच्चों का संरक्षण अधिनियम (POCSO Act) के तहत आपराधिक अभियोजन का सामना कर रहा पिता मामले की सुनवाई लंबित रहने के दौरान बच्चे की कस्टडी (child custody) का दावा नहीं कर सकता, क्योंकि इससे नाबालिग की सुरक्षा और निष्पक्ष साक्ष्य प्रभावित हो सकते हैं।
Headline
Apex Court Bars Accused Father from Seeking Custody During Pending POCSO Trial, Expunges Premature Remarks of High Court
Summary
The Supreme Court of India ruled that a father facing criminal prosecution under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for the alleged sexual abuse of his minor child cannot be granted custody while judicial proceedings remain pending. A Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta underscored that placing a child under the direct authority or custody of an accused parent during an active POCSO trial severely compromises the minor's safety and frustrates the integrity of criminal justice proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- Absolute Disqualification During Trial: A parent against whom a formal police chargesheet has been filed under the POCSO Act cannot claim entitlement to child custody while trial proceedings are underway.
- Preservation of Witness Integrity: Handing a minor victim over to an accused parent creates a substantial risk of intimidation, rendering the possibility of a free, fair, and uninfluenced deposition virtually negligible.
- Expungement of High Court Findings: The Supreme Court expunged observations made by the High Court that had prematurely questioned the genuineness or motivation behind the POCSO complaint.
- Relocation Outside India Permitted: The apex court permitted the mother to relocate both minor children to the United Kingdom for education and stability, holding that living abroad carries no presumption of losing native cultural heritage.
Procedural Background & Factual Matrix
The judgment arose from appeals filed by the mother against a Delhi High Court decision that affirmed a Family Court decree granting sole custody of the couple’s two minor children (born in 2013 and 2019) to the father.
The parties entered into wedlock in 2011, and the mother departed the matrimonial residence in 2018 following allegations of physical abuse. She maintained primary care of the daughter from birth and subsequently regained care of the son. In 2023, during clinical psychiatric counseling at the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) in Bengaluru, the minor son disclosed incidents of past sexual abuse by the father. The spontaneous disclosure led to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under the POCSO Act and the filing of a chargesheet after a formal police investigation.
Despite the pending chargesheet, lower courts granted custody to the father, characterizing the mother’s career-driven employment changes across different academic institutions as a "nomadic lifestyle." The mother subsequently approached the apex court seeking custody rights and permission to relocate the children to the United Kingdom, where she had secured employment as a university lecturer.
Judicial Analysis & Findings
Best Interests and Safety of the Child
The Supreme Court evaluated the matter through the statutory framework of Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which mandates that child welfare, safety, and psychological well-being remain paramount. The Division Bench categorically rejected the lower courts' approach, observing:
"Under no circumstances, the respondent-father, as long as he is facing prosecution, can be considered to be a person entitled to custody of the children."
The Bench highlighted that the safety and disclosures of a minor child cannot be subordinated to a parent's claim for custody simply because criminal proceedings have not reached finality.
Frustration of Criminal Prosecution
The Court observed that transferring physical custody of the minor son to the accused father would defeat the legislative intent of child protection laws. Such a step creates an atmosphere of coercion where the minor's ability to render an uninfluenced statement before the trial court would be severely compromised. The Court added that even if subsequent proceedings or quashing applications alter the status of the FIR, the circumstances surrounding the initial disclosure remain crucial to assessing custody suitability.
Rejection of Cultural Loss Argument
Addressing arguments raised by the father that relocating the children to the UK would alienate them from their native Bengali identity, the Bench noted that mere geographic relocation gives rise to no presumption of cultural detachment. The Court further noted that the record reflected persistent litigious harassment by the father, including filing over a hundred administrative complaints against the mother, which necessitated her job relocations.
Operative Directives Issued
- Custody Orders Stayed: The Supreme Court stayed the custody decrees passed by the Family Court and the Delhi High Court.
- Relocation Approval: The mother was permitted to take both minor children to the United Kingdom and enroll them in an educational institution.
- Affidavit & Undertaking: The mother was directed to file an affidavit within six weeks providing details of school enrollment, alongside a formal undertaking to produce the children before any competent court as required.
- Erasure of Uncalled-For Remarks: Observations recorded by the Delhi High Court doubting the veracity of the POCSO FIR were completely expunged to prevent any adverse influence on ongoing criminal proceedings before the trial court.
Description: In a pivotal ruling, the Supreme Court of India held that a parent facing prosecution under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for allegedly abusing their child cannot be granted custody while trial proceedings remain pending.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that handing over custody to an accused parent severely risks compromising the minor’s ability to give a free, fair, and uninfluenced deposition during the trial.
Setting aside lower court orders, the apex court expunged premature remarks doubting the mother’s complaint and permitted her to relocate with both children to the United Kingdom for their education and stability, holding that living abroad carries no presumption of losing cultural values.