In a cross-border custody dispute over two minor sons, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's 'welfare alone' approach. The Court held that while the child's welfare is paramount, financial capacity, standard of living, comfort and education of the children — and the conduct of the parents — are all relevant. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Supreme Court held that psychological or psychiatric evaluation of children in custody and visitation disputes is not barred, but is permissible only on demonstrable necessity, with minimum intrusion, institutional neutrality and proportionality, the child's welfare paramount. Courts must distinguish therapeutic care from adversarial evaluation and guard against parental-alienation dynamics.