POCSO Act — Misuse in Custody Disputes · 24 September 2026
R v. E & Anr.: Supreme Court Lays Down Safeguards Against Misuse of POCSO Act in Custody Disputes, Quashes FIR Against Father and Family
Supreme Court of India · 2026 INSC 1049; 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 982; Civil Appeal No. 13119 of 2026 (@ SLP(C) No. 1092/2024) with connected appeals
Download the full judgment (PDF)
Enter your name and WhatsApp number to get the download link. We'll also let you know on WhatsApp if we can help with this case — filing, tracking, or anything else — no obligation either way.
We use this only to send the link and to follow up about this case. See our privacy policy.
The parties married in 2011 and had a daughter, 'M', in 2015. After the marriage broke down, the mother left with the child in 2018, leading to years of guardianship and custody litigation. In 2022 the Family Court directed the mother to hand over custody to the father; the High Court upheld this in January 2023, and the mother's appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed in March 2023. Custody was handed to the father in June 2023. The mother then lodged an FIR alleging the father had sexually harassed the child on two occasions and threatened her, naming the father and three other family members (the child's grandparents and an aunt) under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, Section 75 of the JJ Act, and IPC provisions. The Supreme Court transferred the investigation to the CBI, which examined witnesses, CCTV footage and psychiatric evaluation, and concluded the allegations were unreliable.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan quashed the FIR against the father and the three family members, holding the CBI's findings showed the child exhibited no signs of trauma consistent with the allegations and that the case was a gross abuse of process. The Court laid down safeguards for POCSO complaints arising amid matrimonial disputes between a child's parents: police must verify whether a matrimonial dispute exists, arrest is not automatic on registration of such an FIR, and an expert in child psychiatry/psychology must generally assist before arrest or before a private complaint proceeds to summons. On custody, the Court held the child's welfare was best served with the father and directed that legal custody rest with him — but noted physical custody had in fact been with the mother since March 2024, and remitted the matter for a sensitive, supervised process of re-integrating physical custody with the father, rather than an immediate transfer.
General information, not legal advice. This is a plain-language summary for awareness only. Every case turns on its own facts, and this judgment does not decide how a court will rule in your matter. For advice on your own case, speak to an independent advocate — MyCaseFile is not a law firm and does not interpret judgments for anyone's case.