There Are POCSO Allegations Against My Spouse. What Happens to Our Child’s Custody? The Supreme Court’s June 2026 Answer.

By Advocate Karan Dua | Vintage Litigation, New Delhi | Published: June 2026

It is one of the most painful intersections in all of family law.

A marriage has broken down. A custody dispute is under way. And layered on top of it — allegations that the child was sexually abused by one of the parents. A POCSO case has been registered. Criminal proceedings are pending. And now the family court, the parents, and the child are all in a position that the law was never quite designed to handle cleanly.

Two questions dominate every conversation I have with clients in this situation. First: does a pending POCSO case automatically end the accused parent’s right to see the child? Second: can the court order the child to go through psychological testing to decide the custody question?

On June 11, 2026, the Supreme Court of India answered both in a carefully reasoned judgment that every parent, advocate, and family court judge in Delhi needs to read. The ruling in SVT v. CA (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 638), delivered by a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, does not offer simple answers to simple questions. It offers something more durable: a framework for how Indian courts must handle the intersection of POCSO proceedings and child custody disputes, built around one non-negotiable principle — the child’s welfare, psychological safety, and dignity come first.

The Case: What Actually Happened

The parties married in February 2015 in Faridabad. The family subsequently relocated to the United States. The mother alleged that while the family was living abroad, the father had sexually abused the couple’s child when the child was approximately two years old. Following an incident of domestic assault in 2019, the mother returned to India with the child.

Criminal proceedings were registered against the father under the POCSO Act. Multiple FIRs were also filed. The father sought visitation and parental access in custody proceedings before the family court. As part of these proceedings, he applied for the appointment of an independent child psychology expert — he argued that an evaluation was necessary to assess the child’s psychological state and facilitate what he called “restoration of emotional bonding.”

The Family Court initially rejected this request in 2022, noting the pending POCSO case and the child’s ongoing therapy with an existing treating psychologist. The Bombay High Court took a different view: it first substituted the single expert with a panel, and then expanded that panel to four members — including an expert based in the United States. The High Court framed this as a comprehensive assessment.

The mother challenged the High Court’s orders before the Supreme Court. Her position was straightforward: the child had already interacted with multiple agencies. Subjecting her to further assessment by a four-member panel — at least partly composed of specialists proposed by the father — would cause secondary victimisation and re-traumatisation. She also argued that the panel had been constituted in a way that lacked genuine independence.

The Supreme Court agreed that the High Court had not adequately considered the risks. It modified both orders and sent the matter back to the Family Court for fresh consideration under a detailed framework of guidelines that the Court laid down for the first time.

The Supreme Court’s Core Holdings

1. POCSO Principles Apply in Family Court Too

This is the ruling’s most significant contribution to Indian child custody law. Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act, which prohibits requiring a child victim to repeatedly appear in a criminal court, applies directly to criminal trials. But the Supreme Court held that the philosophy behind the entire POCSO Act — that children who are alleged victims of sexual abuse must not be exposed to processes that cause further emotional harm or secondary victimisation — is not limited to criminal proceedings.

That philosophy, the Court held, offers “valuable guidance” to family courts and other forums handling custody disputes involving child victims. In other words: the child-protective principles of POCSO are a benchmark that family courts should apply even in civil custody and visitation proceedings, not just in the criminal case running alongside.

This is a significant doctrinal development. It means that Delhi’s family courts cannot treat a custody hearing involving a child who is also a POCSO victim as if they were just another contested parental dispute. The child’s status as an alleged victim, and the protections that status implies, must shape how the court proceeds.

2. Psychological Evaluation Cannot Be Ordered Routinely

The Court stated this clearly: courts must not direct psychological or psychiatric evaluation of a child merely because parents are fighting over custody or visitation. The fact that a father wants to see his child, and argues that an assessment will help facilitate that, is not by itself a sufficient reason to subject the child to testing.

For a court to properly direct a psychological evaluation of a child who is also an alleged POCSO victim, the order must satisfy five specific requirements the Supreme Court laid down:

• Demonstrable necessity — there must be a specific, clear reason why the evaluation is required that cannot be addressed any other way
• Minimum intrusion — the process must be designed to affect the child as little as possible; the number of sessions, the duration of interactions, and the number of professionals involved must all be kept to what is strictly necessary
• Institutional neutrality — the expert or experts appointed must be genuinely independent, with no prior connection to either party other than on a professional basis; an expert proposed by one party is not a neutral expert
• Proportionality — the scope of the evaluation must be proportionate to the specific question the court is trying to answer, not an open-ended investigation
• Paramount consideration of child’s welfare — the child’s emotional security, dignity, and psychological wellbeing must be the overriding consideration at every stage, not the interests of either parent

The Court also made a specific directive about sequencing: if the Family Court determines that any evaluation is warranted, it must first appoint a psychologist to evaluate the mental condition of both parents, and only then consider any further interaction with the child — and that interaction must happen through the child’s existing treating psychologist, not a fresh panel of strangers.

3. Parental Alienation Syndrome Is Not a Diagnosable Condition

This part of the ruling will directly affect how fathers — and sometimes mothers — frame their custody arguments. The father in this case had sought experts in “parental alienation syndrome” as part of the evaluation panel. The Supreme Court was explicit: parental alienation syndrome should not be treated as a diagnosable medical or psychological syndrome in Indian courts.

The Court acknowledged that a child can be genuinely influenced by one parent against the other, and that this is a real and serious concern in some custody disputes. But the correct way to assess this is as a question of fact — looking at specific, evidenced behaviour — not by invoking a syndrome that allows one parent’s advocate to argue the other parent has “caused” the child’s preferences or fears through psychological manipulation. The danger, the Court noted, is that this framing can be used to delegitimise a child’s genuine disclosures of abuse, including POCSO disclosures, by attributing them to parental influence rather than actual events.

4. Everything Must Remain Confidential

Whatever psychological evaluation does take place must be handled under strict confidentiality. The child’s identity, anything the child discloses during evaluation, therapeutic records, and evaluative reports must not be made available to either party except where a specific judicial determination requires it. Audio-video recordings and session notes from therapeutic interactions are not litigation material and should not ordinarily be produced in court.

What This Means for Delhi Custody Cases in Practice

If you are a parent currently in a custody dispute where POCSO allegations are involved — on either side — this ruling changes what you can expect from the Family Court.

If you are the mother (or the non-accused parent): You now have a clear Supreme Court framework to cite when the other side applies for psychological evaluation of the child. Any such application must satisfy all five requirements above. A panel of multiple experts, or experts without clear demonstrated independence from the applicant, does not pass this test. The child cannot be subjected to repeated evaluations simply to give the accused parent a route back to access. At the same time, the Court was careful to note that expert assistance is not entirely ruled out — it may be appropriate in specific, well-defined circumstances. The ruling is about when and how, not an absolute prohibition.

If you are the father (or the accused parent): A pending POCSO case does not automatically terminate your parental rights or permanently end all prospects of visitation. What it does is significantly raise the procedural threshold for access. The Court acknowledged both parental rights and the child’s interests in knowing both parents. But any path back to visitation or access must be built through the Family Court, under the Court’s supervision, using genuinely neutral expert assistance — not through an adversarially constituted panel of specialists you have proposed. The direction that both parents should first be psychologically assessed is, in fact, a balanced one: it looks at each parent’s fitness and mental state, not just the child’s.

On how this affects the child custody application itself: Welfare of the child remains the paramount and overriding consideration in all contested divorce proceedings that involve children. This ruling reinforces that the child’s emotional security and psychological wellbeing are not secondary factors — they are constitutional considerations, and the Supreme Court has now given family courts specific tools to operationalise that. A well-prepared custody application should, from the filing stage, address the child’s welfare in these terms: stability of environment, continuity of schooling and therapy, the identity of professionals currently involved in the child’s care, and what each parent’s proposal means for the child’s daily experience.

If domestic violence complaints are also pending alongside the POCSO case: This is a common pattern — a custodial dispute runs alongside a DV Act complaint and a POCSO case. The Supreme Court’s ruling makes clear that the family court handling custody must be alive to what is happening in all of these parallel proceedings, and must not inadvertently create processes that either compromise the POCSO case or further harm the child. Coordination between these threads, and strategic filing sequencing, becomes critically important. This is an area where experienced bail and criminal counsel working alongside your matrimonial lawyer matters significantly.

A Word on What This Ruling Does Not Say

The Supreme Court was careful to frame the limits of its own ruling in SVT v. CA. It was not evaluating the merits of the POCSO allegations. It was not deciding whether the father should or should not have any access to the child. It was not creating a rule that POCSO allegations automatically terminate parental access forever. And it was not saying that courts can never seek expert psychological assistance in custody cases.

What it was doing was requiring that when courts seek such assistance, they do so in a way that protects the child. The five-step test it laid down is not a barrier to justice — it is a structure for a more considered and child-sensitive judicial process.

How Vintage Litigation Can Help

Advocate Karan Dua has represented clients in complex child custody disputes — including matters involving parallel POCSO and DV Act proceedings — across Delhi’s family courts, the Delhi High Court, and the Supreme Court of India. Whether you are the parent seeking to protect the child, or the parent seeking to maintain your relationship with your child through a structured legal process, navigating a case that involves both POCSO allegations and a custody dispute requires expertise in both criminal and matrimonial law simultaneously.

We can help you understand your specific position under this new framework, build the right evidentiary record from the outset, and appear before the relevant courts with a strategy that reflects both the June 2026 ruling and the specific facts of your case.

Online first consultation. Fully confidential. No commitment required.

📞 Call / WhatsApp: +91-9999483959 📧 Email: Adv.karan.dua67@gmail.com 📍 O-11A, Basement, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi – 110014 ⏰ Monday–Saturday, 9 AM – 6 PM. WhatsApp available after hours.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. My spouse has a POCSO case pending against them. Will they automatically lose custody or visitation?

Not automatically. The Supreme Court’s June 2026 ruling in SVT v. CA (2026 INSC 638) confirmed that a pending POCSO case does not terminate all parental rights by operation of law. What it does is significantly raise the procedural threshold for any access or visitation — the Family Court must ensure that any process involving the child is governed by the child-protective principles of the POCSO Act, including minimum intrusion and protection from secondary victimisation. Visitation, if any, would need to be structured under careful judicial supervision.

Q2. The other parent wants the court to order a psychological evaluation of our child. Can I challenge this?

Yes, and the June 2026 ruling gives you a specific legal framework to do so. The Court held that psychological or psychiatric evaluation cannot be ordered as a matter of routine. It must satisfy five requirements: demonstrable necessity, minimum intrusion, institutional neutrality, proportionality, and paramount consideration of the child’s welfare. If the application for evaluation does not satisfy these requirements — particularly if the proposed experts are not genuinely independent — you have a strong basis to oppose it.

Q3. What is “secondary victimisation” and why does it matter in a custody case?

Secondary victimisation occurs when a child who has suffered abuse is further harmed by the legal or investigative processes meant to help them — repeated questioning, multiple evaluations, being required to recount traumatic experiences to strangers. The Supreme Court recognised that family court proceedings, not just criminal trials, can cause this harm. This is why it held that the POCSO Act’s child-protective philosophy must guide family courts in custody and visitation disputes involving alleged child victims.

Q4. Can a court-appointed psychologist be proposed by one of the parties?

The Supreme Court specifically held that experts must be “demonstrably neutral and independent, with no prior engagement with either litigating party.” An expert proposed by one party — even if qualified — fails the neutrality test and should not be appointed. If the other side has proposed the evaluating expert, this is a ground to challenge both the process and the findings.

Q5. What is parental alienation syndrome, and can it be used against me in court?

The Supreme Court clarified in SVT v. CA that parental alienation syndrome should not be treated as a diagnosable medical condition in Indian courts. The Court acknowledged that one parent genuinely influencing a child against the other is a real concern — but it must be assessed as a question of fact based on specific, evidenced behaviours, not invoked as a psychiatric syndrome. Courts cannot use the syndrome label to automatically dismiss a child’s disclosures of abuse or attribute them to parental manipulation without evidence.

Q6. I have a POCSO case and also a domestic violence complaint filed against me. How does the custody case interact with these?

All three proceedings — the POCSO criminal case, the DV Act complaint, and the custody petition — run in parallel in different courts. The Family Court handling custody must be aware of what is happening in all three, and should not create processes that compromise any of them. From a strategy perspective, this means your responses in each forum need to be coordinated from day one — a statement made in one proceeding can affect your position in another. Specialist legal advice covering all three simultaneously is critical.

Q7. The child already has a treating psychologist. Does the court still need to appoint a new one?

The Supreme Court specifically directed that any interaction with the child in custody proceedings should happen through the child’s existing treating psychologist rather than a new panel of strangers. Appointing fresh evaluators duplicates trauma and disrupts established therapeutic relationships. If the child is already in therapy, that existing relationship should be preserved and utilised rather than bypassed.

Q8. Can the psychological evaluation report be shared with both parties?

The Supreme Court held that evaluative reports, therapeutic records, and disclosures made during evaluation must remain strictly confidential. They should not ordinarily be made available to either party except where a specific judicial determination requires it. This is a direct protection for the child — their disclosures in a therapeutic setting should not become weapons in an adversarial court battle.

Q9. Does the Supreme Court’s ruling cover custody disputes in Delhi or only cases that went to the Bombay High Court?

The Supreme Court’s ruling is a national precedent and applies to all Family Courts and High Courts across India, including Delhi and the NCR. The facts of SVT v. CA originated before a Bombay High Court appeal, but the framework of guidelines the Court laid down — the five-step test, the neutrality requirements, the confidentiality protections — apply wherever in India a family court is handling a custody dispute involving a child who is also an alleged POCSO victim.

Q10. My child is caught between both parents in a custody dispute. What is the most important thing I should do right now?

From a legal standpoint: do not do anything that causes further disruption to the child’s routine, schooling, or ongoing therapy. Document the child’s current environment — school attendance, therapist’s details, daily schedule — and what each parent’s practical involvement has been. If POCSO or DV proceedings are already filed, inform your child custody lawyer immediately so that your responses in those proceedings are coordinated with your custody strategy from the start. And do not, under any circumstances, involve the child in adult conversations about the legal proceedings — courts look at this conduct closely, and the June 2026 ruling’s emphasis on parental behaviour as a fact question means your own conduct in the period before any hearing matters.

Adv. Karan Dua — Advocate, Delhi High Court | Matrimonial & Family Law Adv. Karan Dua is a Delhi-based advocate specialising in matrimonial disputes, child custody proceedings, POCSO-related custody matters, domestic violence, and contested divorce. He practises before the Delhi High Court and family courts across the NCR, with particular experience in complex multi-forum cases. Learn more about Vintage Litigation or get in touch.