Kerala High Court Overturns Family Court Decision Giving Father Custody, Says Postpartum Depression is Common and Usually Short-Lived.
The Kerala High Court overturned a Family Court decision that awarded custody of a child to the father, based on the belief that the mother was experiencing postpartum depression and was not willing to care for the child. The Court noted that postpartum depression is common and usually temporary. This case arose from a petition challenging the Family Court’s ruling, which had granted custody of the 1.5-year-old child based on medical records indicating postpartum depression shortly after the child’s birth. The mother, who filed the petition, had her request for review denied and was required to give the child to the father.
A Division Bench consisting of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha annulled the Family Court’s decision, stating, “Scientific studies show that postpartum depression is common in some women and is typically a temporary condition.” The case began when the husband sought permanent custody of the child, claiming the wife had psychiatric issues. The mother contested this claim, arguing that the assumption of her mental health issues was unfounded. She requested the Court to reverse the decision, explaining that the child was reluctant to go to his father and needed breastfeeding, and that separating them would cause her significant distress.
The Court reviewed the medical records submitted and noted that, “even if they hold legal validity,” these records were created right after the wife gave birth and only indicated that she was experiencing postpartum depression, which suggested some distance from the baby at that time. The Family Court could not conclude that the wife was unwilling to nurse the child based on these records. The Court observed that when both parties appeared, the wife requested a medical evaluation to prove she did not have any psychiatric or cognitive issues. A later assessment by the Government Medical College in Ernakulam found “no signs of any major psychiatric disorder.” The Court stated that “without additional evidence and evaluation,” the Family Court’s assumptions could not be supported.
The father’s lawyer was asked by the Court if he still wanted custody after the medical evaluation, to which he affirmed, expressing concern that the child’s safety would be at risk if the mother received custody. The Court deemed this concern unfounded, “at least from a preliminary perspective.” It clarified that the evaluation from the Government Medical College was solely for the Court’s consideration, and both parties could utilize all available options when the Family Court ultimately resolves the case. The Court accepted the Original Petition and overturned the Family Court’s Orders, instructing it to handle the case as quickly as possible “without being influenced by our comments.” To protect the parties’ privacy, the Court ordered the Registry to conceal their names.
Cause Title: X v. X [OP (FC) NO. 671 OF 2024]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates M.G. Sreejith, Vidyajith M., Bincy Jose and Rojin Devassy
Respondent: Kalam Pasha B., Vishakha J., Hasna Ashraf T.A., Juvyria A.A., Government Pleader P.M. Shameer
