Supreme Court - High Court - Legal Breaking News | Live Law India

POCSO-Courts Must Order Psychological Assessment Of Child Only If Necessary; Minimum Intrusion Should Be Norm: Supreme Court

Amisha Shrivastava — Thu, 11 Jun 2026 11:56:53 GMT

The Supreme Court today observed that psychological assessments of children involved in custody, visitation and parental access disputes should be ordered only when necessary and "minimum intrusion" into a child's life should be the norm, particularly where the child is an alleged victim of sexual abuse.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh made the observations while modifying orders of the Bombay High Court that had directed the constitution of a panel of psychologists and experts to evaluate a minor child who is also an alleged victim of sexual abuse by her father.

The Court clarified that it was not dealing with the merits of the sexual abuse allegations. However, while examining the issue of psychological evaluation, it referred to the objectives of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), which proceeds on the fundamental premise that a child who has suffered sexual abuse should not be exposed to processes capable of causing further emotional harm or secondary victimisation.

The Supreme Court stressed that a court, acting as parens patriae for the child, must be especially careful while directing any form of examination of a minor.

“We have also, in that context, examined the provisions of the POCSO Act, which proceeds on the fundamental premise that child who has allegedly suffered sexual abuse must not be exposed to processes capable of causing further emotional harm, immolation, or secondary victimization. Keeping that in mind, we have felt that minimum intrusion to the child's life should be the norm as acting as parens patriae for the child, we have to be more careful when we direct any kind of examination of the child”, the Court observed.

The Court referred to reports prepared by experts from the Department of Psychiatric Social Work and the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS). The reports highlighted issues affecting both children and parents in custody disputes, including parent-child relationships, parental dynamics, parental mental health concerns, malicious acts by parents, adjustment to changes in a child's life, school-related issues and child mental health concerns.

The Court observed that questions concerning child custody, visitation rights and parental access cannot be viewed solely from the perspective of the child and must instead be examined holistically, taking into account the conduct and mental condition of the parents as well.

In the case before it, the Supreme Court modified orders of the Bombay High Court that had directed the constitution of a panel of psychologists and experts to evaluate the child.

Instead, the Court directed the Family Court to first appoint a psychologist to assess the mental and psychological condition of both parents, particularly the mother, in whose custody the child presently resides. The court-appointed psychologist will then interact with the psychologist currently treating the child and submit a report to the Family Court.

The Supreme Court directed that the Family Court should decide, after considering that report, whether any direct psychological assessment of the child is necessary. If such assessment is found unnecessary, it should not be conducted.

If it is considered necessary, it must be undertaken by an independent child psychologist in consultation with the child's treating psychologist and with the minimum interaction necessary so as not to adversely affect the child's mental condition.

The Court also directed the Family Court to periodically review the need for any psychological assessment, noting that a growing child's psychological needs may evolve over time. The parties were granted liberty to seek modification of custody and visitation arrangements as circumstances change.

Further, the Court directed the parties to keep the Family Court informed about the status of the POCSO proceedings pending against the father, observing that those proceedings could have a significant bearing on decisions relating to custody and visitation rights.

The matter has been remitted to the Family Court for fresh consideration in light of the Supreme Court's observations and directions.

The Court also observed that courts must remain alert to concerns regarding parental alienation syndrome and false memory creation. While noting that the child is presently in the safe custody of her mother, the Court said the child should not be exposed to influences that may foster such syndromes against the father. The Court stated that information on this aspect may be obtained through reports from the psychologist treating the child without necessarily requiring direct interaction with the child on the issue.

The Court also clarified that its observations in the present judgment should not be treated as exhaustive or inflexible guidelines applicable in every case. It emphasised that disputes involving the psychological condition, emotional responses and welfare needs of children do not admit rigid formulas or uniform standards. The Court observed that emotional responses vary from child to child and may also change over time in the case of the same child.

Case no. – SLP(C) No. 18701-18702/2024

Case Title – Sheetal Vasant Thakur v. Chirag Arora

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 618

Click here to read the judgment

'Homemakers Are Nation Builders' : Supreme Court Quantifies Homemaker Contribution As Rs 30K Per Month In Motor Accident Claims

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi — Thu, 11 Jun 2026 09:32:02 GMT

The Supreme Court has held that the loss of domestic care provided by a homemaker constitutes a distinct and compensable head of damages in motor accident claims, while quantifying the value of such domestic services at a minimum of Rs. 30,000 per month.

The Court ordered :

"We deem it appropriate to direct that when a Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal or the High Court or this Court is concerned with or a case involving the death of a homemaker, in order to overcome the inherent disadvantage accrued against the homemaker on a calculation of compensation on the basis of conservatively computed notional income and while being acutely aware of the dictum in Pranay Sethi (supra) regarding loss of consortium asregarding loss of consortium as also the disposition towards uniformity, that for the three major heads (the homemaker's contribution towards smooth functioning of the household, the loss of maternal support for children and loss of spousal support/the support and care of their child who is an adult, for the parents of the deceased) ..., a composite sum of Rs.30,000/- shall be added under the head of 'loss of domestic care', provided that all three of these heads are met in the given case. This determination shall be revised by 10%, cumulatively, every three years

"It may be clearly stated that this amount of Rs.30,000/- i.e., loss of domestic care is to be taken as a 'stand- in' (basic minimum monthly income) for monthly income in those cases where the homemaker does not have an input into the house, in strictly conventional, monetary terms. In those cases where the homemaker is part of the workforce, the component of loss of domestic care shall be in addition to the monthly income as may be proved before the Tribunal/Courts."

Pronouncing the judgment in an appeal arising out of a motor accident claims, the bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice AG Masih observed that the contribution of a homemaker extends beyond the household and plays a vital role in nation-building. The Court emphasized that the loss of domestic care suffered by a family due to the death or incapacitation of a homemaker deserves independent recognition while determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

"We are also of the view that the housewife contributes to the growth of the human being and the nation. The homemaker builds nation. So we have laid down the principles, and as a nation builder, we have housewife, we have quantified the amount that the loss of domestic care monthly income minimum in any event would be 30,000 per month," Justice Karol said at the time of pronouncement.

Justice Karol said that "loss of domestic care" would be a ground in addition to the heads of damages recognized by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi judgment for awarding compensation in motor accident claims.

"We only hope and trust that the word Home Maker will now acquire the acronym of nation builder," Justice Karol said.

On contribution of homemakers

Enhancing compensation payable to the family of a homemaker who died in a road accident in Haryana in November 2001, the Court observed :

"The homemakers, to put it directly, actually are the 'nation builders' and they ought to be recognised as such."

The Court lamented that homemakers continue to be perceived as dependent on earning members despite the household substantially depending on their labour and care. It noted that unpaid domestic and caregiving work performed by women remains economically undervalued despite its enormous contribution to society and the economy.

"It is ironic to describe a homemaker as dependant on earning members, when, in reality the household's functioning depends substantially on the homemaker," the Bench said.

The judgment contains an extensive discussion on the social, emotional, economic and psychological contributions made by homemakers. Referring to women as the first teachers of children and the unseen force behind families, the Court said homemakers play a central role in shaping human capital, social bonds and national development.

The Bench observed that while the contribution of homemakers extends far beyond biological reproduction, they are also largely responsible for preparing the human capital on which the country's economic aspirations rest. It added that the everyday labour of homemakers enables other family members to pursue education, professions and livelihoods.

The Court further noted that women's unpaid caregiving work is estimated to contribute between 15% and 17% of India's GDP, yet remains unpaid and largely unrecognised.

Surveying earlier precedents including Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., the Court observed that judicial recognition of the value of homemakers' services has evolved over the years.

In a previous notable judgment delivered in 2024, the Supreme Court (Arvind Kumar Pandey v. Gyanesh Pandey) had observed that the notion that homemakers do not work was wrong, and held that their deemed income must not be less than the minimum wages notified for a daily wager.

The Bench held that compensation calculations must reflect present realities and should not undervalue the contribution of homemakers by relying solely on outdated notional income figures.

While quantifying compensation, the Court fixed the minimum value of loss of domestic care rendered by the deceased homemaker at ₹30,000 per month. The Bench observed during the hearing that the contribution of a homemaker cannot truly be monetised, but courts are required to assign a pecuniary value for the purpose of awarding just compensation.

Directions issued to expedite motor accident claims

The Court also issued directions aimed at ensuring expeditious disposal of motor accident compensation claims. Referring to Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which envisages a summary procedure before Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, the Bench expressed hope that the provision would be implemented "in letter and spirit."

After examining over a hundred motor accident compensation appeals decided by a Bench presided over by Justice Karol, the Court noted that in nearly half the cases, pendency exceeded four years. It observed that courts must remain vigilant regarding delays in such matters and emphasised that claims arising out of beneficial legislation should ordinarily not remain pending before High Courts for more than four years.

Further, the Court expressed its expectation that the Chief Justices of all High Courts would monitor motor accident claim proceedings to ensure timely adjudication and effective implementation of the principles laid down in the judgment.

Case : SHISHUPAL @ SHISH RAM AND ORS. v. SURJEET AND ORS | SLP(C) No. 33915/2025

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 617

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment