"Postpartum Depression Common, Only Lasts A Short While": Kerala HC Sets Aside Family Court Order Granting Custody To Father
The Kerala High Court set aside order of a Family Court granting custody of a child to the father on the presumption that the mother was suffering from postpartum depression and was unwilling to nurse the child.
The Court said that postpartum depression is a common phenomenon which lasts for only a short while.
The Court was hearing a petition challenging the Orders of a Family Court that had granted the custody of the 1.5 year child based on medical records prepared immediately after the child's delivery showing signs of postpartum depression. The mother, the Petitioner in the present case, had filed a review against those Orders, which was dismissed and she had to hand over the child to the father, the Respondent here.
A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha set aside the Family Court's Orders and observed, "It is now well settled, through scientific studies and assessments, 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".
Advocate M.G. Sreejith appeared for the Petitioner-Wife and Advocate Kalam Pasha appeared for the Respondent-husband.
The case originated when the husband filed a Petition seeking permanent custody of the child before a Family Court. The Court allowed it finding that the wife is suffering from psychiatric disorders. The mother assailed the Orders of the Family Court stating that the assumption that she was suffering from psychiatric disorders is unfortunate and without any factual basis. She prayed that the Orders be set aside, submitting that the child was unwilling to go to his father, that he was at a stage where he needed to be breastfed and removing the child would cause her trauma and stress.
Perusing the medical records placed on record, the Court noted that "even assuming that legal validity can be attached to it" the said records were prepared immediately after the wife gave birth to the child, and only indicate that she was suffering from postpartum depression thus showing some alienation to the baby at that time. The Family Court could not declared the wife to be unwilling to nurse the child based on these records, the Court said. It noted that when the parties appeared before it, the wife insisted that she be evaluated medically to establish that she is not suffering from any psychiatric or cognitive impairments.
A subsequent medical evaluation by the Government Medical College, Ernakulam found "no evidence of any major psychiatric disorder obtained during evaluation." Based on this report, the Court said "without further evidence and assessment" the presumption of the Family Court cannot find favour.
The counsel for the father was asked by the Court whether, in light of the medical evaluation, he was still insisting on custody, to which he replied in the affirmative, airing the apprehension that the child's life will be in danger if custody is given to the mother. The Court found this apprehension untenable, "at least from a prima facie point of view".
The Court clarified that the Government Medical College's evaluation was only for the Court's assessment and the parties were free to invoke every liberty available to them when the matter is finally disposed of by the Family Court.
The Court allowed the Original Petition and set aside the Orders of the Family Court, with a direction to the Family Court to dispose of the case as expeditiously as is possible "untrammelled by our observations". Since the Court believed that privacy of the parties needed to be protected, it directed the Registry to mask the names of the parties.
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
