The Kerala High Court has reversed a Family Court ruling that awarded permanent custody of a girl child to the father. The original decision was based on the mother’s medical records, which indicated she had experienced post-partum depression.

The Division bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha ruled in favour of the mother (petitioner), observing that “postpartum depression is rather common in some women and that this is not a situation that will continue forever, but most of the time being temporary, for a short duration” and the same cannot be sufficient ground to deny custody of the child to mother.

The court’s decision followed a petition filed by the mother, contesting the custody order issued by the Family Court in Mavelikkara.

Earlier, the Family Court had granted the father overnight interim custody. Later, the father filed applications for both permanent and interim custody, alleging that the mother was suffering from psychiatric disorders. Accepting these claims, the Family Court granted the father’s petitions.

The mother’s review petition was rejected, leading to another order that directed a woman police officer to transfer custody of the child to the father.

The petitioner mentioned that there was no basis for claiming she had ongoing psychiatric issues. During the hearing, it was argued that the family court’s reliance on records from February 2023, shortly after childbirth, was outdated and did not reflect her current mental state.

Further, the petitioner highlighted that the child was still breastfeeding and unwilling to stay with the father, suggesting that separation would cause significant trauma and stress to the mother.

On the contrary, plea was opposed by the father (respondent), who argued that the mother displayed signs of severe postpartum disorder, lacked maternal bonding, and posed a risk to the child's well-being. The respondent sought to retain custody of the child, backing his claims with the mother’s medical records.

The court reviewed a detailed evaluation report from the Department of Psychiatry, Government Medical College, Ernakulam, which was based on a mental status examination conducted on November 5, 2024.

The report found the petitioner to be conscious, coherent, and free from any major psychiatric disorders. The court observed, “It is thus obvious that the presumption of the Family Court regarding the alleged psychiatric issues of the petitioner cannot be found favour with, at least as of now, without further evidence and assessment.”

The court concluded that the Family Court's decision to assume psychiatric impairment based solely on earlier medical records was unjustified.

“To allege that the petitioner-wife is still suffering from postpartum depression and is even unwilling to nurse the child, certainly requires to be established through cogent and reliable methods; but, in our firm view, could not have been so declared by the Family Court,” the court said.

“we cannot find the afore apprehension to be fully tenable, at least from a prima facie point of view.”

The caase was sent to the Family Court with instructions to re-examine the case, allowing both parties the opportunity to present updated evidence.