Legal Analysis : Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora

Citation: 2026 INSC 638

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Date of Decision: June 11, 2026

Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18701-18702 of 2024 against the orders dated 27.04.2023 and 07.12.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellant-mother and respondent-father are estranged parents of a minor daughter (now about 10 years old). The mother alleged that the father sexually abused the child when she was about 2-3 years old in the USA. Following domestic assault proceedings in the USA, the mother returned to India in December 2019. Subsequently, FIRs were registered against the father under the POCSO Act. The father sought appointment of an independent psychiatric expert to evaluate the child for facilitating reconnection. The Family Court rejected his application. The Bombay High Court, however, directed appointment of an independent expert, and later modified it to a four-member panel of experts (including professionals suggested by the father and experts outside India) to evaluate the minor child. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in substituting a single expert with a panel of multiple experts without considering the risk of re-traumatisation and secondary victimisation of the child victim. The Court modified the impugned orders and remitted the matter to the Family Court with detailed directions, emphasising that psychological evaluation of a child victim must follow the principles of minimum intrusion, institutional neutrality, and paramount consideration of the child's welfare. The Court also issued comprehensive guidelines for courts dealing with psychological evaluation of minors in custody or visitation disputes involving allegations under the POCSO Act.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora

Citation: 2026 INSC 638

Civil Appeal No.: Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18701-18702 of 2024

Bench: Division Bench (Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh)

Date of Decision: June 11, 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Impugned Order: (i) Order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in I.A. No. 4119/2023 in Writ Petition No. 7315/2022 modifying its earlier direction for appointment of a single independent expert to a panel of experts; (ii) Interim order dated 07.12.2023 passed in Writ Petition No. 7560/2023 constituting a four-member panel of experts to evaluate the minor child.

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 – Section 24 (child-friendly recording of statement), Section 33(5) (child not to be called repeatedly to testify), Section 36 (child not to be exposed to accused), Section 39 (support persons, experts and assistance for child's welfare).

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) (dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty and desertion).

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Sections 12 and 17 to 23 (proceedings before Magistrate).

Family Courts Act, 1984 – Section 12 (court may secure services of medical expert or family welfare professional).

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 323, 504, 506.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 151 (inherent powers of court).

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 136 (special leave to appeal).

Key Precedents Cited and Applied

Sakshi v. Union of India (2004) 5 SCC 518 – This Court recognised that repeated exposure of child victims to intimidating judicial procedures may aggravate trauma and issued directions for child-friendly procedures.

Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2009) 1 SCC 42 – Welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody matters; the court exercises parens patriae jurisdiction; welfare includes moral, ethical, physical, emotional and intellectual development.

Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan (2020) 13 SCC 733 – Foreign custody orders are subordinate to the prime consideration of welfare of the child.

Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2022) 11 SCC 165 – Comity or first strike consideration is subordinate to welfare of child.

Thrity Hoshie Dolikuka v. Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka (1982) 2 SCC 544 – Repeated interviews conducted with a tender minor mind can cause strain and depression; sending for a child for interview may not serve any useful purpose and may create further demoralisation.

Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh (2017) 3 SCC 231 – Discussion on Parental Alienation Syndrome

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.