Headnote
AI-drafted · Editorially reviewed
The appellant-mother filed a civil appeal before the Supreme Court challenging two orders of the Bombay High Court passed in writ proceedings concerning custody of and access to a minor child. The first impugned order modified an earlier direction for appointment of a single independent expert by substituting the word 'expert' with 'panel of experts'; the second order constituted a four-member panel of experts—including professionals suggested by the father and experts situated outside Jalgaon and even outside India—to evaluate the minor child for purposes of facilitating reconnection with the respondent-father.
The controversy arose at the intersection of two competing concerns: the respondent-father's claim for restoration of access and reconnection with the child, and the constitutional court's obligation to ensure that a child who is allegedly a victim of sexual abuse by her own father is not subjected to processes that may aggravate trauma and compromise emotional recovery. The child, born on 24.06.2016 in New Jersey, USA, was brought to India by the appellant following alleged domestic assault on 29.12.2019. FIRs were subsequently registered against the respondent under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 4, 5(l), 5(n) and 6 of the POCSO Act at Yerwada Police Station, Pune and Faridabad Police Station, Haryana.
The Supreme Court examined the manner in which the justice delivery system must respond to and engage with a child victim while balancing welfare, dignity, psychological safety and procedural fairness. The Court noted that the issue was not merely one of custody or visitation rights but of paramount concern for the child's welfare in the context of alleged sexual abuse and ongoing criminal proceedings.
Catchwords:
child custody
visitation rights
sexual abuse
POCSO
panel of experts
child welfare
psychological safety
habeas corpus
domestic violence
Hindu marriage
best interest of child
expert evaluation
trauma
reconnection
© LegalFirms.in — Headnote is proprietary. Raw judgment text is in the public domain
per Section 52(1)(p) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Full Judgment Text
{
"title": "Sheetal Vasant Thakur vs Chirag Arora",
"case_number": "Civil Appeal Nos. of 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.18701-18702 of 2024)",
"side": "civil",
"date_of_judgment": "2026-06-11",
"bench": "Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, Sanjay Karol",
"reportable": true,
"parties_petitioner": "Sheetal Vasant Thakur",
"parties_respondent": "Chirag Arora",
"result": "other",
"headnote": "The appellant-mother filed a civil appeal before the Supreme Court challenging two orders of the Bombay High Court passed in writ proceedings concerning custody of and access to a min
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools.
For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
From ₹167/month.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.