Postpartum depression not ground to permanently withdraw child custody from mother: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently set aside an order granting an infant's custody to the child's father instead of his estranged wife, after noting that the postpartum depression allegedly suffered her cannot be the sole ground to permanently withdraw the child from the mother's custody.

The High Court observed that the family court's decision was based on old medical records from February 2023, which indicated that the mother had been suffering from postpartum depression.

The Division Bench of Justices Devan Ramachandran and MB Snehalatha went on to emphasise that further inquiry should have been done to find out if the mother was still suffering from any such condition.

"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 records," the Court said.

Postpartum depression is quite common and a temporary condition, the Court explained.

"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," the November 8 order said.

The case before the Court concerned the custody of an infant aged about a year old. The father of the child had filed a petition before the family court seeking permanent custody of the child. He claimed that the mother’s psychiatric disorders, including postpartum depression, made her unfit to care for the child.

The family court, after reviewing certain medical records, granted interim custody to the father, and later granted him permanent custody of the child.

The mother later challenged the family court’s orders before the High Court, arguing that the assumption that she was suffering from psychiatric disorders was baseless.

The mother contended that her child was still nursing and was unwilling to go with the father. Removing the child from the mother's care would cause significant emotional trauma, she added. She further asserted that the claim of postpartum depression did not reflect her current mental state.

The husband, on the other hand, maintained that the mother’s mental condition left her unable to properly care for the child.

When the High Court was hearing the matter, the mother volunteered to undergo a medical evaluation, insisting that she was not suffering from any psychiatric disorder.

The Court, thus, directed a medical board at the Government Medical College in Ernakulam to assess her mental health. The report so submitted confirmed that she showed no signs of any significant mental health issues that would impair her ability to care for her child.

The High Court eventually concluded that the family court had relied too heavily on outdated and insufficient medical evidence to conclude that the petitioner-mother was unfit to care for the child.

"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," the High Court noted.

It proceeded to set aside the family court's decision and ordered a reconsideration of the matter after rehearing both parties.

"The evaluation of the petitioner by the Government Medical College is only for our assessment and we leave the parties to invoke every other liberty that may be available to them, when the matter is finally disposed of by the learned Family Court," the High Court added.

The petitioner was represented by advocates MG Sreejith, Vidyajith M, Bincy Jose, Rojin Devassy.

Advocates Kalam Pasha B, Vishakha J, Hasna Ashraf T A, Juvyria AA and Government Pleader P M Shameer appeared for respondent.

[Read Judgement]