INTRODUCTION
Child custody and guardianship are among family law’s most delicate and emotionally charged areas. These decisions affect far more than just living arrangements; they shape a child’s mental, emotional, and developmental future, while also significantly impacting the rights of both parents. Traditionally, Indian courts have relied on the guiding principle of the “best interests of the child,” which includes the child’s safety, emotional well-being, access to education, and a stable home environment.
In recent years, courts have started paying closer attention to an increasingly important aspect: the mental health of parents. Mental health is a person’s emotional, psychological, and social well-being. Conditions such as depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia can influence a parent’s ability to provide consistent care. However, Indian courts do not assume that a mental health diagnosis alone renders someone unfit to parent. Instead, they aim to strike a balance, safeguarding the child’s welfare while also upholding the dignity and rights of parents with mental health conditions.
This blog explores how Indian law and judicial decisions treat parents’ mental health in custody and guardianship matters. It analyses key legislation, landmark case law, international obligations, and practical challenges, offering insight into how courts are evolving to make fair, compassionate, and child-centric decisions.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
In India, there is no single rule that clearly says how mental illness should affect child custody. However, courts follow specific laws and international agreements to guide them. One important law is the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890,[1] which allows a court to appoint a guardian if needed for the child’s welfare. Another is the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956,[2] which names natural guardians for Hindu children but also lets the court step in if it is better for the child. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015[3] is also important because it protects children in difficult situations and provides options like foster care and adoption.
India is also a part of important global agreements. For example, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), 1989[4]says that in all decisions involving children, their best interests must come first. Another treaty, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), 2006,[5]says that people with mental illness must not face discrimination, even when it comes to parenting. These laws and agreements together make it clear that mental illness should not be an automatic reason to deny custody. What matters is whether the parent can give the child love, care, and a stable life.
Many court cases in India support this idea. In Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit (2006),[6] the Supreme Court said that just having a mental illness is not enough to take away custody. The court should check whether the illness affects the child’s well-being. If the parent takes treatment and has family support, they should not lose custody. In Shamim Ara v. State of UP (2002),[7] the court said judges must look at the whole situation of the person, including their health, before deciding, and they must give clear reasons, not just assumptions.
In Ramesh v. Union of India (1988),[8] the court warned against relying on stereotypes. It said that courts should listen to psychiatrists and mental health experts before deciding if a mental illness affects a parent’s ability to care for the child. In another important case, Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2009),[9] the court said that what matters most is whether the parent’s condition harms the child’s emotional and mental growth. Just having a disorder is not enough; there must be real harm to the child’s development.
All these cases show that Indian courts are trying to make fair decisions. They understand that having a mental illness does not always make someone a bad parent. What matters most is the child’s safety, happiness, and future and whether the parent, despite their condition, can meet those needs.
ROLE OF MEDICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL EVIDENCE
In modern custody cases, Indian courts often rely on medical and psychological evidence to make informed decisions. Judges may ask for expert reports from psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, counsellors, or the family’s general physician. These reports help the court understand the nature and severity of the parent’s mental health condition. They assist in determining whether the illness is manageable, whether the parent is undergoing proper treatment, and whether they can offer consistent and reliable care to the child. Experts may also advise the court on whether specific arrangements, like supervised custody, joint custody, or conditional visitation, would be safer and more suitable for the child.
Such expert opinions ensure that decisions are based on medical facts rather than assumptions, prejudice, or social stigma. The Supreme Court in Gaurav Nagpal v Sumedha Nagpal [10]highlighted that the emotional and psychological needs of the child are just as important as their physical needs. Therefore, courts must adopt a holistic approach when deciding custody.¹ Similarly, in Smt. Sunita Sharma v Dr. Manjit Singh,[11] the Delhi High Court recognised the critical role of psychological evaluations in custody matters. It held that mental health assessments could significantly help identify the child’s best interests.² In another important judgment, Rosy Jacob v Jacob A Chakra Makkal,[12] the Supreme Court observed that child custody should be based on the child’s emotional well-being rather than being seen as a matter of parental rights alone. These rulings make it clear that the child’s psychological welfare must be at the centre of every custody decision.
CHALLENGES AND CONCERNS
Despite the progress made in recognising mental health in child custody cases, several serious challenges remain. One of the most significant problems is the ongoing stigma and bias against mental illness in Indian society. This affects how people, including judges, view a parent’s ability to care for a child, even when the parent’s condition is mild or manageable with treatment. Many people still assume that any mental health condition makes someone unfit to parent, which is not always true.
Another significant issue is the lack of access to proper mental health services. Families often struggle to find qualified psychologists or psychiatrists in rural and underdeveloped areas. Without professional help, it becomes difficult to get proper medical assessments or therapy, which are often needed to support or defend a parent’s case in court. Moreover, there are no uniform guidelines followed by family courts across India when dealing with custody cases involving mental health. Because of this, courts sometimes give very different judgments in similar cases, leading to inconsistency and confusion.
False allegations are another concern. In some cases, one parent falsely accuses the other of being mentally unwell to gain an advantage in custody disputes. This can seriously harm the child, waste valuable court time, and damage the wrongly accused parent’s reputation. Also, the burden of proof in such cases often falls on the parent facing the allegations. Not everyone has the money or resources to get legal or medical help to defend themselves. Therefore, courts must be cautious and ensure that every case is treated fairly and based on proper evidence.
Recognising these problems, the Law Commission of India’s 257th Report (2015) [13]recommended that India adopt uniform custody and guardianship reforms, including psychological assessment tools to assist courts in making informed decisions.
CONCLUSION
This blog explored how mental health is treated in Indian child custody and guardianship decisions. Starting with the traditional focus on the “best interests of the child,” it showed how courts are increasingly factoring in the mental health of parents, not as a ground for automatic disqualification, but as a factor to be understood with compassion and evidence. The discussion covered relevant domestic laws like the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, and the Juvenile Justice Act 2015, alongside international treaties such as the UNCRC and CRPD, which require that children’s welfare be prioritised and that persons with mental illness not be unfairly discriminated against.
Judicial decisions such as Vinita Saxena, Gaurav Nagpal, and Rosy Jacob reveal that Indian courts are trying to strike a fair balance between protecting children and respecting parental rights. Courts now rely more on psychiatric and psychological evidence, and recognise that mental illness alone does not make someone unfit to parent. At the same time, the blog highlighted serious challenges, such as stigma, false allegations, lack of access to mental health services, and the absence of uniform judicial guidelines, which continue to create inequalities and confusion in custody rulings. These issues underscore the urgent need for reform.
From a legal and policy standpoint, the analysis suggests India must adopt a more structured and empathetic approach to such sensitive cases. Uniform guidelines, judicial training in mental health, and reliance on expert evidence are essential to avoid bias. Ultimately, the goal must be twofold: to ensure the child’s emotional and physical well-being and to protect the dignity and rights of parents navigating mental health challenges. A just custody system must be fact-based, stigma-free, and focused on what truly matters, nurturing the child in a stable, supportive environment while upholding the constitutional values of equality and human dignity.
Author(s) Name: Vaidehi Sharma (Symbiosis law school. NOIDA)
References:
[1] Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, s 6.
[2] Guardians and Wards Act 1890, s 7.
[3] Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, ss 2(14), 37, 41, 58.
[4] United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (adopted 20 November 1989, entered into force 2 September 1990) 1577 UNTS 3, art 3(1).
[5] Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (adopted 13 December 2006, entered into force 3 May 2008) 2515 UNTS 3, art 23.
[6] Vinita Saxena v Pankaj Pandit (2006) 3 SCC 778.
[7] Shamim Ara v State of UP (2002) 7 SCC 518.
[8] Ramesh v Union of India AIR 1988 SC 8.
[9] Gaurav Nagpal v Sumedha Nagpal (2009) 1 SCC 42.
[10] Gaurav Nagpal v Sumedha Nagpal (2009) 1 SCC 42.
[11] Smt Sunita Sharma v Dr Manjit Singh AIR 2020 Del 126.
[12] Rosy Jacob v Jacob A Chakra Makkal (1973) 1 SCC 840.
[13] Law Commission of India, Report No 257: Reforms in Guardianship and Custody Laws in India (May 2015) https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/Report257.pdf accessed 14 June 2025.
