Post-Partum Depression Is Common, Temporary: Kerala HC Sets Aside Family Court's Order Granting Permanent Custody Of Child To Father

The Court further stated that scientific studies are proving that post-partum depression is relatively common in some women and is typically a temporary condition and not permanent.

The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha observed that the Family Court should not have granted permanent custody the daughter to the father merely based on the mother's medical records which indicated post-partum depression shortly after giving birth to the child.

“It must be borne in mind that, 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. 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 learned Family Court as has been done in Ext P8 order, merely based on the afore (medical) records.”

The petitioner and respondent were married and they have a one and half year old child. After their divorce, the respondent-father filed a petition before the Family Court seeking permanent custody of their child.

The Family Court granted the custody of the child to the father on the prima facie finding that the mother was suffering from psychiatric disorders. The review filed by the mother was also dismissed. The Family Court also issued an order directing a woman police officer to take and hand over the custody of the child to the father. The petitioner-mother challenged all the above orders before the High Court.

The mother submitted before the Court that there was no factual basis for alleging that she was suffering from psychiatric issues. She also submitted that child is unwilling to go with the father and is still being breastfed by her. It was submitted that removing the child from the mother who is nursing would cause her severe trauma.

The Court stated that it could not find in favour of the order of the Family Court granting custody to the child merely based on the mother's old medical records indicating post-partum depression. 

Court stated, "When one examines the said records – even assuming that legal validity can be attached to it – it is luculent that they are of February 2023, immediately after the petitioner gave birth to the child; and it only indicates that she was suffering from postpartum depression, thus showing some alienation to the baby at that time."

Pursuant to the mother's insistence, the Court ordered her medical evaluation to prove that she was not suffering from any psychiatric issues.

The Court referred to the medical evaluation report of the mother which stated that she was not suffering from any major psychiatric disorder. Court stated, “It is thus obvious that the presumption of the learned 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 observed prima facie that they were not agreeable to the father's argument that the child's life would be in danger since the mother was unable to take care of the child by relying upon the medical report.

However, the Court stated that the parties were free to choose any medical assessment suitable to them to litigate the matter before the Family Court. 

As such, the Court quashed the orders issued by the Family Court granting permanent custody of the child to the father. The Court also directed the Family Court to grant opportunity to both parties while hearing the petition.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates M.G.Sreejith, Vidyajith M, Bincy Jose, Rojin Devassy

Counsel for Respondents: Advocates Kalam Pasha B, Vishakha J, Hasna Ashraf T A, Juvyria A A, Government Pleader P M Shameer

Case Number: OP (FC) NO. 671 OF 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 714