# Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 299
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-03-03
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1037 of 2025
- **Bench:** Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sharmila-velamur-v-v-sanjay-and-ors-38857
- **Pages:** 42

## Headnote

Whether 'A' having severe cognitive limitations is capable of making
independent decisions; whether best interests and welfare of 'A', a
US citizen would be served by permitting him to continue residing
with Respondent No.4-father in India.
Headnotes†
Child and family welfare - Custody matter - Appellant-mother
and respondent no. 4-father are US citizens, divorced in US -
Appellant was granted permanent legal guardianship of their
elder son 'A' who suffers from Ataxic Cerebral Palsy, by the
US Court - However, while the guardianship proceedings
were pending, the Respondent No.4 brought A to India
without informing the Appellant - She filed writ of habeas
corpus in High Court alleging illegal detention of A - High
Court very briefly interacted with A and held that he was
consensually living with Respondent No.4 in India, dismissed
the petition - Supreme Court doubting the child's capacity to
make independent decisions, ordered a medical assessment
at NIMHANS, Bengaluru:
Held: NIMHANS, Bengaluru in its Comprehensive Assessment
Report held that owing to 'A' cognitive and physical limitations, he
does not possess the capacity to make well-informed, independent
decisions, for his own benefit, on complex subject matter, such as
long-term residence - This is also concurred by the report of the
Evaluation Committee constituted by the Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare (West Hub Developmental Disabilities Program) -
Thus, as 'A' was assessed to possess the cognitive abilities of an
8 to 10-year-old child, the reasoning assigned by the High Court,
* Author
378
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
of him consenually living in India is seriously erroneous - 'A' cannot
make independent, legally-binding decisions on his own - High
Court erred in coming to a finding on 'A's alleged illegal detention
solely based on his perceived 'independent' decision to reside in
India with Respondent No. 4 - Impugned judgment set aside - 'A'
to be under the sole custody of the Appellant - Further directions
issued. [Paras 21, 23, 41]
Expert Opinion - Expert's report to be given due credence
unless strong reasons to disbelieve it - Parties are US citizens,
divorced in US - Appellant-mother was granted permanent legal
guardianship of their elder son 'A' (22 years old) with severe
cognitive limitations - Appellant filed writ of habeas corpus
in High Court alleging his illegal detention by the Respondent
No.4-father - High Court very briefly interacted with 'A' and
held that he was consensually living with his father in India,
dismissed the petition - It did not consider the report of the
Evaluation Committee constituted by the Idaho Department
of Health and Welfare (West Hub Developmental Disabilities
Program) consisting of a Psychologist, a Physician and a
Social Worker, to decide whether 'A' was living consensually
in India:
Held: Even though Courts are well within their rights to come
to a finding distinct from an expert's report, the expert's opinion
cannot be discarded, as a whole without any reason - The dispute
before the High Court concerned the sensitive and complex issue
of alleged illegal detention of a person with severe cognitive
limitations, it ought to have considered and given due credence
to the Evaluation Committee's report which had held that 'A' does
not possess the capacity to make well-informed, independent
decisions, for his own benefit, on complex subject matter, such as
long-term residence - If the High Court had any doubt as to the
reliability of the report and its conclusions, it ought to have ordered
an enquiry through a reputable medical institution - Dismissing all
aspects of scientific assessment in a highly specialized and niche
area of medicine was misconceived and ill-founded - In the event
there is any confusion or doubt regarding a person's capacity and
ability to make independent decisions and if there is a definitive
opinion on disability endorsed by a specialist, domain expert, or
a doctor, the Court should

## Text

_Characters 0–39,944 of 86,051. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39944 for what follows._

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 377 : 2025 INSC 299
Sharmila Velamur
v.
V. Sanjay and Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1037 of 2025)
03 March 2025
[Surya Kant,* Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether 'A' having severe cognitive limitations is capable of making
independent decisions; whether best interests and welfare of 'A', a
US citizen would be served by permitting him to continue residing
with Respondent No.4-father in India.
Headnotes†
Child and family welfare - Custody matter - Appellant-mother
and respondent no. 4-father are US citizens, divorced in US -
Appellant was granted permanent legal guardianship of their
elder son 'A' who suffers from Ataxic Cerebral Palsy, by the
US Court - However, while the guardianship proceedings
were pending, the Respondent No.4 brought A to India
without informing the Appellant - She filed writ of habeas
corpus in High Court alleging illegal detention of A - High
Court very briefly interacted with A and held that he was
consensually living with Respondent No.4 in India, dismissed
the petition - Supreme Court doubting the child's capacity to
make independent decisions, ordered a medical assessment
at NIMHANS, Bengaluru:
Held: NIMHANS, Bengaluru in its Comprehensive Assessment
Report held that owing to 'A' cognitive and physical limitations, he
does not possess the capacity to make well-informed, independent
decisions, for his own benefit, on complex subject matter, such as
long-term residence - This is also concurred by the report of the
Evaluation Committee constituted by the Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare (West Hub Developmental Disabilities Program) -
Thus, as 'A' was assessed to possess the cognitive abilities of an
8 to 10-year-old child, the reasoning assigned by the High Court,
* Author
378
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
of him consenually living in India is seriously erroneous - 'A' cannot
make independent, legally-binding decisions on his own - High
Court erred in coming to a finding on 'A's alleged illegal detention
solely based on his perceived 'independent' decision to reside in
India with Respondent No. 4 - Impugned judgment set aside - 'A'
to be under the sole custody of the Appellant - Further directions
issued. [Paras 21, 23, 41]
Expert Opinion - Expert's report to be given due credence
unless strong reasons to disbelieve it - Parties are US citizens,
divorced in US - Appellant-mother was granted permanent legal
guardianship of their elder son 'A' (22 years old) with severe
cognitive limitations - Appellant filed writ of habeas corpus
in High Court alleging his illegal detention by the Respondent
No.4-father - High Court very briefly interacted with 'A' and
held that he was consensually living with his father in India,
dismissed the petition - It did not consider the report of the
Evaluation Committee constituted by the Idaho Department
of Health and Welfare (West Hub Developmental Disabilities
Program) consisting of a Psychologist, a Physician and a
Social Worker, to decide whether 'A' was living consensually
in India:
Held: Even though Courts are well within their rights to come
to a finding distinct from an expert's report, the expert's opinion
cannot be discarded, as a whole without any reason - The dispute
before the High Court concerned the sensitive and complex issue
of alleged illegal detention of a person with severe cognitive
limitations, it ought to have considered and given due credence
to the Evaluation Committee's report which had held that 'A' does
not possess the capacity to make well-informed, independent
decisions, for his own benefit, on complex subject matter, such as
long-term residence - If the High Court had any doubt as to the
reliability of the report and its conclusions, it ought to have ordered
an enquiry through a reputable medical institution - Dismissing all
aspects of scientific assessment in a highly specialized and niche
area of medicine was misconceived and ill-founded - In the event
there is any confusion or doubt regarding a person's capacity and
ability to make independent decisions and if there is a definitive
opinion on disability endorsed by a specialist, domain expert, or
a doctor, the Court should give due credence to that opinion - If
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
379
Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.
the expert's report concludes that the mental or physical age of
the person concerned is well below the age of majority, there can
be no inference of any 'implied' or 'express' consent to any act
which might have a substantive impact on the consenting person -
Unless there are strong reasons to disbelieve an expert's report
to this effect, the Courts must be overly-cautious in coming to a
finding contrary thereto. [Paras 20, 22]
Child and family welfare - Custody matters - Child's best
interest and welfare - Determination - Doctrine of parens
patriae - Parties are US citizens - Issue of custody of their
elder son 'A' suffering from Ataxic Cerebral Palsy - Whether
A's best interests and welfare would be served by permitting
him to continue residing with Respondent No.4-father in India:
Held: 'A', his parents and his younger brother, have resided in the
US for two decades and are all US citizens - Having been born
and brought up in the US, they are accustomed to the culture,
the activities, the language and the schooling there - They know
no other way of life and have their roots in the US - Regardless
of these commonalities, the brothers share certain unique
characteristics which helps them understand, relate to, and lean
on each other - Also, A has completed most of his schooling in
the US; he has access to long-term specialized welfare services
and curriculums; he has a peer group; an established routine;
and places to regularly attend for socialization - He is familiar
with the language and lifestyle in the US - Also, 'A' desires to
be in the company of his younger brother, from whom he has
been separated for far too long - It cannot be said that 'A' has
given up his roots in the US and has developed new roots in
India, due to which he should not be displaced - In the facts and
surrounding circumstances, it is in A's best interests and welfare
to return to the US, where he can complete his schooling and
reside with his younger brother, under the appellant's guardianship.
[Paras 35, 38, 39]
Child and family welfare - Custody of child - Best interest of
child - Comity of courts - Principle of:
Held: The principle of comity of courts and a pre-existing order
of a Foreign Court must yield to the best interests of the child,
especially when the Court has decided to conduct an elaborate
380
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
enquiry in this regard - Court to take into account all the attending
circumstances and the totality of the situation to consider the
interests of the child. [Paras 31, 32]
Case Law Cited
Girish v. Radhamony K. (2009) 16 SCC 360; Suchita Srivastava
v. Chandigarh Admn. [2009] 13 SCR 989 : (2009) 9 SCC 1 -
distinguished.
Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. [2018] 4 SCR 955 : (2018) 16 SCC
368; Sheoli Hati v. Somnath Das [2019] 9 SCR 212 : (2019) 7 SCC
490; Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh [2017] 2 SCR 312 : (2017) 3
SCC 231; Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2017]
7 SCR 281 : (2017) 8 SCC 454; Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M.
Dinshaw [1987] 1 SCR 175 : (1987) 1 SCC 42; Dhanwanti Joshi
v. Madhav Unde [1997] Supp. 5 SCR 30 : (1998) 1 SCC 112;
Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka [2022] 4 SCR
784 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 937; V. Ravi Chandran (Dr.) (2) v.
Union of India [2009] 13 SCR 1022 : (2010) 1 SCC 174; Gaurav
Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal [2008] 16 SCR 396 : (2009) 1 SCC
42 - referred to.
List of Keywords
Custody; US citizens; Ataxic cerebral palsy; Severe cognitive
limitations; Cognitive abilities of an 8 to 10-year-old child; Capacity to
make independent decisions; Independent, legally-binding decisions;
Alleged illegal detention; Habeas corpus; Best interest and welfare
of the child; Permanent legal guardianship; Principle of comity of
courts; Expert opinion/report; NIMHANS Bengaluru; Evaluation
Committee; Joint custody; Cognitive capacity; Doctrine of parens
patriae; Guardianship; Severe disability; Autism spectrum disorder.
Case Arising From
Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction/Inherent Jurisdiction: Criminal Appeal
No. 1037 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2024 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in HCP No. 886 of 2024
With
Contempt Petition (C) No. 9 of 2025
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
381
Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv., Ashim Sood, Mayank Pandey, Anish Gopi,
Velpula Audityaa, Ms. Bhavya Pandey, Ekansh Gupta, Ashish
Kumar Pandey, Nirmal Prasad, Ribhav Pande, Arun.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ms. Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv., Aakash Nandolia, Sabarish Subramanian,
Lzafeer Ahmad B. F., Sachin Dubey, Dheeraj Nair, Akhil Anand,
Ms. Ridhima Sharma.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Surya Kant, J.
Leave granted.
2.
The controversy in this case revolves around the custody of Aadith
Ramadorai, a twenty-two-year-old citizen of the United States of
America (US) who has been diagnosed with Ataxic Cerebral Palsy.
This tussle for custody has been elicited by Aadith Ramadorai's
parents-the Appellant and Respondent No. 4-both of whom are
also US citizens.
A.
Facts
3.
It is necessary to understand the factual milieu surrounding the
dispute before delving into the consequential legal issues.
3.1 To clarify the relationship between the parties, as previously
elucidated, the Appellant and Respondent No. 4 are Aadith
Ramadorai's mother and father, respectively. Respondent No.
1 is the Appellant's brother, whereas Respondent Nos. 5 and
6 are Respondent No. 4's parents.
3.2 The Appellant and Respondent No. 4 got married in Chennai,
India on 09.07.2001, as per Hindu rites and customs.
Subsequently, they began residing together in Idaho, US and
acquired US citizenship in due course of time. They had two
sons-Aadith Ramadorai (Aadith), who was born on 06.06.2003,
382
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
and Arjun Ramadorai (Arjun), who was born on 13.03.2005from the wedlock. Both the children are US citizens by virtue
of their birth and their parents' citizenship. These children were
born with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Aadith has
Ataxic Cerebral Palsy, while Arjun has Autism Spectrum Disorder.
3.3 During their marriage, certain irreconcilable differences arose
between the Appellant and Respondent No. 4, prompting them
to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent through an order
dated 12.09.2007, passed by the District Court of the Fourth
Judicial District, State of Idaho, US (Idaho Court). While
dissolving the marriage, the Idaho Court awarded joint legal
and physical custody of the sons, as they were minors at the
time. The Idaho Court established the terms of joint custody
as follows: (i) Respondent No. 4 would have physical custody
of the sons every week from 8:00 am on Friday to 8:00 am on
Monday; and (ii) the Appellant would have physical custody of
the sons every week from 8:00 am on Monday to 8:00 am on
Friday. The Idaho Court divided all holidays equally amongst
the parents and further directed them to not disparage each
other in the midst of their sons, teachers, care providers, and
medical providers. Additionally, neither party was directed to
pay child support to the other. Lastly, in furtherance of these
directions, the Idaho Court vide Clause 13 of the Supplemental
Custody Order expounded that, "Neither parent shall move the
children's residence to a place which will make the ordered
custody and visitation schedule impractical or significantly
more difficult or expensive without prior written consent
of the other parent or an order of the court."
3.4 Thereafter, in June 2022, following a visit in terms of the Idaho
Court's custody arrangement, Respondent No. 4 brought Arjun
back to the Appellant's home, whereas Aadith continued to reside
with Respondent No. 4. It is pertinent to note that by this time,
Aadith had already attained majority. This led the Appellant to file
a Guardianship Application before the Idaho Court on 30.06.2022,
seeking full and permanent legal guardianship over Aadith. In
response thereto, Respondent No. 4 filed a Counter-Petition
before the Idaho Court on 17.01.2023, contending that Aadith was
sufficiently capable and did not require a permanent guardian.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
383
Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.
3.5 In due course, during a preliminary hearing on 04.01.2023
before the Idaho Court, the parties' attorneys laid down
mutual terms for them to adhere to until the conclusion of the
proceedings. These terms included: (i) meeting with the Health
and Welfare Committee within 45 days; (ii) sharing Aadith's
address, phone number, and email address with the Appellant;
(iii) allowing regular in-person contact between the Appellant
and Aadith, subject to his comfort level; and (iv) providing
advance notice and written itineraries for any foreign travel
arrangements involving Aadith, which would be discussed by
the parents jointly.
3.6 As per the terms mentioned above, the Appellant and Aadith were
scheduled to be interviewed on 17.05.2023 by the Evaluation
Committee of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
(West Hub Developmental Disabilities Program) (Evaluation
Committee). The Evaluation Committee's findings revealed that
Respondent No. 4 and Aadith refused to attend the interview/
meeting. A report based on the Evaluation Committee's
findings was sent to the parties and the authorities. Soon after,
Respondent No. 4 brought Aadith for his in-person interview
with the Evaluation Committee. Accordingly, an addendum dated
25.10.2023 was issued, marking their presence, and concluding
that Aadith required guardianship.
3.7 In the interregnum, mediation sessions were scheduled to be
held between the parties. However, during this period, the
Appellant discovered that Respondent No. 4 and Aadith had
left the US to visit Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in Chennai, India.
This rendered the Appellant entirely unaware of their travel and
return itinerary. Therefore, she was unable to maintain regular
contact with her son.
3.8 While these developments were materialising, parallelly, the
Idaho Court appointed the Appellant as Aadith's temporary
guardian on 10.01.2024. Against this backdrop, investigations
conducted by the US Federal Authorities and the Idaho District
Authorities revealed that during the pendency of the proceedings,
Respondent No. 4 obtained Aadith's passport and left the US
on 31.12.2023. On arriving in India, they began residing in
Chennai with Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
384
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
3.9 By virtue of this, the Appellant, on 31.01.2024, filed an online
police complaint with Respondent No. 2. She then authorized
her brother, Respondent No. 1, to act on her behalf to retrieve
custody of Aadith. Thereupon, on 05.02.2024, the Appellant
lodged a complaint with the NRI Cell in Chennai. In furtherance
thereto, the Police Authorities in Chennai were able to retrieve
Aadith's passport number, along with the last known address
and contact details of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. However,
Aadith and Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 remained untraceable.
3.10 Concurrently, in the guardianship proceedings pending before
the Idaho Court, an Emergency Order came to be passed on
22.02.2024, directing Aadith to return to Boise, Idaho within 72
hours. When this direction was not followed, the Idaho Court
proceeded to decide the Guardianship Application in favour of
the Appellant, consequently appointing her as Aadith's full and
permanent guardian on 09.04.2024. This order was passed after
duly hearing parties' testimonies; and after reviewing the report
dated 17.05.2023 and addendum dated 25.10.2023 issued by
the Evaluation Committee.
3.11 Despite the decree passed by the Idaho Court, Aadith's
whereabouts remained unknown to the Appellant. This prompted
the Appellant to file H.C.P. No. 886/2024 before the High Court
of Judicature at Madras (High Court) through Respondent
No. 1, inter alia praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas
Corpus directing Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to retrieve custody
of Aadith from Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and to handover his
person to Respondent No. 1.
3.12 During the proceedings, the High Court interacted with Aadith
and posed multiple questions to him. Based on the answers
tendered, the High Court, vide its judgment dated 09.08.2024,
primarily determined that there was no illegal detention because:
(i) Aadith was capable of understanding the questions posed
by the High Court; and (ii) He was happy and willing to reside
in Chennai with his father and his paternal grandparents
(Impugned Judgement). On 09.09.2024, the US Consulate
General, Chennai revoked Aadith's passport.
3.13 Thus, aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the Appellant
preferred the instant appeal.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
385
Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.
3.14 This Court, in the course of this appeal, passed the order dated
16.12.2024, issuing certain interim directions: (i) Respondent
No. 4 was directed to facilitate video calls between the Appellant
and Aadith in the evening between 7:00 pm and 9:00 pm IST.
The call duration was to be for a maximum of 30 minutes; (ii)
Upon the Appellant's arrival in India, Respondent No. 4 was
directed to handover temporary custody of Aadith to her; (iii)
While Aadith was under the temporary custody of the Appellant,
she and Respondent No. 4 would ensure that he gets his
medical treatment regularly and preferably, in adherence with
the recommendations of specialists in the US; (iv) Respondent
No. 4 was permitted to contact Aadith daily while he was under
the temporary custody of the Appellant; and (v) The Appellant
and Respondent No. 4 were directed to consult the best doctors
in Chennai for continued treatment of Aadith.
3.15 In the meantime, Aadith, in a purported exercise of his own free
will, filed two interlocutory applications in the instant appeal.
They are I.A. No. 301117/2024 and I.A. No. 301051/2024,
seeking to be impleaded in the matter and seeking directions
to keep the order dated 16.12.2024 in abeyance till 07.01.2025,
respectively. These applications were accompanied by signed
affidavits, stating that Aadith was fully conversant with the facts
and circumstances of the case and that the applications had
been prepared in consonance with his instructions.
3.16 Simultaneously, being dissatisfied by Respondent No. 4's noncompliance with the order dated 16.12.2024, the Appellant
preferred the captioned Contempt Petition. She sought to allege
that despite the clear instructions enumerated in the order
dated 16.12.2024, the Appellant was not allowed to interact
with Aadith on video call. Further, upon her arrival in Chennai,
Respondent No. 4 refused to hand over temporary custody of
Aadith. In fact, he ceased all communication with her. When the
Appellant arrived at their flat on 24.12.2024, she was permitted
to interact with Aadith for roughly 30 minutes, forcing her to cut
short her time with her son and leave the flat without obtaining
temporary custody of Aadith.
3.17 Respondent No. 4 brought Aadith for medical assessment to the
Institute of Mental Health, Kilpauk in Chennai on 25.11.2024.
386
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
On Respondent No. 4's request, Aadith was examined and an
Observation Report was prepared, which recorded as follows:
"Mr. Aadith Rajson Ramadorai 21 years, male was
registered in the Institute of Mental Health, Chennai -
10 on 25.11.2024. He was subsequently examined
on 29.11.2024, 02.12.2024 and 09.12.2024 at his
request and the request of his father.
Detailed history was obtained from his father.
Physical examination, mental status examination
and psychological assessment were done. He has a
history of developmental delay since childhood.
On psychometry, he has an Intelligence quotient
(IQ) of 54, which is suggestive of mild intellectual
disability (50% disability).
He is able to do simple work on instructions. He is
able to travel to familiar places alone. He is capable
of living with the assistance of his family members.
He will require support for making major decisions
in life like property management."
3.18 Subsequently, this Court, vide order dated 08.01.2025, directed
that Aadith will reside with his younger brother, Arjun, and
the Appellant in Bengaluru, during the pendency of these
proceedings. Respondent No. 4 was permitted to visit and
interact with his sons for 3 hours every day. Further, the Appellant
and Respondent No. 4 were directed to take the sons for
medical assessment to the National Institute of Mental Health
and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS), Bengaluru, arguably one of
the best institutes in the country. The doctors at NIMHANS,
Bengaluru were requested to give their expert opinion as to
whether Aadith is in a position to make independent decisions.
The report so prepared was ordered to be submitted before
this Court in a sealed cover.
3.19 It seems that the parties substantially complied with the order
dated 08.01.2025, particularly the directions concerning custody,
as Aadith has been residing with his younger brother and the
Appellant in Bengaluru ever since. In continued compliance
with the above order, Aadith and his brother were brought to
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
387
Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.
NIMHANS, Bengaluru on 13.01.2025 by their parents. They
were duly admitted as in-patients on 14.01.2025.
3.20 From 17.01.2025 to 29.01.2025, Aadith was examined by the
Department of Clinical Psychology at NIMHANS, Bengaluru. He
was administered 7 tests namely, the Vineland Social Maturity
Scale (VSMS), the Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Skills - 3
(VABS), the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - IV India Edition,
the Binet Kamat Test of Intelligence (BKT), the Comprehension
Subtest from Malin's Intelligence Scale for Indian Children
(MISIC), the Theory of Mind/False Belief Tests (Anne and Sally
Test; Matchbox Test), and the Delayed Discounting Task. The
test findings are reproduced below:
"SOCIAL AND DAILY ADAPTIVE FUNCTIONS
Vineland Social Maturity Scale (VSMS)
The VSMS was administered to assess his socioadaptive functioning. The patient's social age
was found to be 7 years, which corresponds to
an SQ of 47, which suggests Moderate level of
disability in current socio-adaptive functioning,
corresponding to 75% disability. As Mr. Aadith has
motor disabilities and that would have affected his
overall VSMS score, an attempt was made to adjust
the score by removing the scores related to motor
components from VSMS. This showed his score as 53
(Impairment-adjusted SQ); which indicated Moderate
disability in socio-adaptive functioning according to
the VSMS score classification of revised Gazette of
India notification. However, the gazette notification
was mainly for intact VSMS score (i.e. not for
Impairment-adjusted SQ). Hence, the interpretation
of Impairment-Adjusted SQ to be done with caution.
It should be noted that VSMS is standardized in
India several decades ago and might not adequately
reflect his current level of socio-adaptive functioning,
for mainly 2 reasons. One the patient is born and
brought up in the US, and that the standardization
was done long time ago. However, the limitations
388
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
if has an influence would have caused their score
to inflate, rather than bring down. Despite these
limitations, his scores still showed that he has
Moderate level of disability in social and adaptive
functioning.
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale - 3 (VABS - 3)
- Comprehensive Form
The VABS-3 test was administered to assess his
adaptive behavior. The patient obtained a standard
score of 38 on the Communication domain, and 47
on the domain of Daily Living Skills, both suggestive
of deficits of 'Moderately low' level in these domains.
His ability on the domain of socialization showed
significant disability as well as a sub-domain scatter,
where his coping skills related to social domain was
significantly lower compared to the other domains
of socialization such as interpersonal relationships,
play and leisure. He obtained a total sum of
domain standard scores of 100 corresponding
to an Adaptive Behavior Composite (ABC) of 34,
suggestive of 'Low' level of Adaptive Behavior
on the current assessment.
INTELLIGENCE TESTS:
Binet Kamat Test of Intelligence (BKT)
On BKT, the patient's basal age and terminal age
were found to be 6 years and 14 years respectively.
His prorated mental age obtained is 10 years. His
prorated intelligence quotient (IQ) is 63, indicating
Mild level of disability in intellectual functioning.
Similar to VSMS, BKT has been standardized in Indian
Population, several decades ago and intelligence
value obtained is through ratio method. Considering
this, the obtained IQ can be said as an inflated value,
given that Mr. Aadith has been born and bought up in
USA. Despite this, he has obtained a prorated IQ
of 63, which is in the Mild Intellectual Disability
range.
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
389
Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IVINDIA Edition
(WAIS-4INDIA)
On WAIS-4INDIA, his Verbal Comprehension Index
Score was calculated to be 75. The perceptual
Reasoning Index was 53, the Working Memory Index
(WMI) was calculated to be 47, and the Processing
Speed Index was 45. This yields a full-scale IQ
(FSIQ) of 53. This score falls in the range of
Mild Intellectual Disability. WAIS-4INDIA as the
name implies is standardized for Indian population.
However, given the norms differences between Indian
and US population, the obtained scores by Mr. Aadith
if referred to Indian norms will yield a higher score,
compared to US norms. It should be noted that
despite this, his score is in the Mild Intellectual
Disability range.
Malin's Intelligence Scale for Indian Children
(MISIC) - Comprehension Subtest
On the MISIC subtest of Comprehension, the
patient obtained a raw score of 05, corresponding
to a test quotient of 62, indicating Mild levels
of disability in comprehension. Again, relatively
similar to in VSMS and WAIS-4INDIA, the MISIC is for
children up to the age of 16 years and the norms
are for Indian children. Despite this his score is in
the disability range.
PERSPECTIVE TAKING and DECISION MAKING:
Theory of Mind/False-Belief Tests
Theory of mind was tested using Anne and Sally test
False-Belief - Matchbox test.
The patient performed poorly on both Anne and
Sally and Matchbox tests, where he could not
attribute mental states (beliefs, intents) to others.
That is, on test, he spontaneously, did not view
that the others have their own thoughts/beliefs
independent of himself.
390
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Delay Discounting Task:
Delay Discounting Task primarily assesses decision
making and impulsivity. In this task Mr. Aadith
performed poorly in the second trail itself,
where he preferred significantly smaller reward -
immediately, forgoing significantly larger reward -
at a delay of one month. For example, when
presented with the patient a hypothetical scenario
of choosing between 10 INR now or 100 INR after
a month, he said 100 INR after a month. However,
with the follow-up questions of choosing 20 INR now
or 100 INR after a month, he answered 20 INR now.
He could not answer the subsequent questions and
had difficulty understanding the value of money.
COMMENTS ABOUT INDEPENDENT DECISION
MAKING:
• Decision Making for Daily Living Activities:
As observed on VABS-3 and VSMS, the patient
is capable of carrying out basic daily activities,
such as brushing his teeth with an electric
toothbrush, adjusting water to the appropriate
temperature for bathing, and selecting suitable
clothing based on the weather. He can also spread
sauces or jam using a table knife, change clothes
with large buttons, put on shoes without laces,
and use certain kitchen appliances, such as bread
toaster and a microwave oven, under supervision.
However, he struggles with independent self-care
when left alone and has difficulty performing
more complex tasks. He faces challenges using a
manual toothbrush, handling a knife to cut fruits,
and independently seeking medical attention as
needed. Additionally, he would have difficulty
operating household appliances safely, such as
a vacuum cleaner, iron, or power tools.
While he is able to tell time using the digital watch, he
struggles with reading an analog clock. Furthermore,
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
391
Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.
he has difficulty exercising discretion and
judgment in higher-level activities, such as
traveling alone to unfamiliar places or setting and
achieving long-term goals that require planning
over two years or more.
Impression: Independent Decision-making ability
is adequate for basic activities but inadequate for
higher-level activities.
• Decision Making for Financial Safety:
When asked to make payments or explicit purchases,
the patient shows responsibility with a small amount of
money. He is careful about this and uses it as directed.
However, he has not able to make independent
decisions with regard to monetary aspects in
relatively higher values.
He has also been observed to have difficulty
differentiating currency values and providing the
correct change. When asked which currency had a
higher value, 100 INR or 500 INR, he chose 100 INR.
The same error was observed when questioned
about US currency. Additionally, he struggled with
basic mathematics, such as addition and subtraction.
For instance, when given a scenario where 50 INR
was spent on ice cream, and 100 INR was handed to
the shopkeeper, he could not determine the correct
return amount. He also had difficulties performing
similar other simple, mental calculations of verbal in
nature, involving two-digit numbers about subtraction,
multiplication, and division.
Financial safety and related aspects were to have
significant deficits.
Impression: He cannot make independent
decision in financial aspects.
• Decision Making for Socialization:
On VABS-3, it was observed that the patient can
recognize emotions and express his feelings through
392
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
words. He shares toys and possessions voluntarily
without being prompted and takes turns naturally
while playing games or sports. Additionally, he can
join a group when verbal and nonverbal cues indicate
he is welcome and adjusts his behaviour to avoid
disturbing others nearby.
However, he struggles with playing complex games
that involve rules and has difficulty imitating intricate
actions hours after observing them, such as shaving,
vacuuming, or hammering nails. He also faces
challenges in modulating his speech appropriately in
terms of loudness, speed, and excitement to match
the conversation. Engaging in discussions on topics
that do not interest him is difficult, as is initiating
conversations by discussing subjects relevant to
others. He also struggles to pick up on indirect cues
or hints in conversations and has difficulty providing
additional explanations to ensure his message is
understood.
Furthermore, he would have difficulty planning
activities that require coordinating multiple elements,
such as organizing a birthday party or a group
outing. He also lacks the ability to navigate
social situations safely, such as going out with
peers in the evening without supervision, social
media, and identifying harmful relationships or
situations. This includes difficulty avoiding or
exiting situations where he might be bullied,
coerced into illegal activities, or taken advantage
of sexually or financially.
Impression: Independent decision making in
simple social and close group/family/home
aspects is adequate, but anything beyond is
inadequate.
• Decision Making for Occupation:
It was observed that the patient can sometimes
complete routine household tasks when instructed,
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
393
Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.
use basic tools or utensils, and draw simple
shapes and objects with pencils or crayons.
However, he would have difficulty engaging
in small remunerative work, such as making
simple garments, performing minor repairs, taking
the initiative in occasional tasks like housework, or
assisting in child care. Additionally, he would struggle
with creative activities, including making useful items,
raising pets, writing simple stories or poems, or
creating basic paintings.
He also faces challenges in performing responsible
routine chores appropriate for his age, such as
assisting with household tasks, caring for a
garden, cleaning a car, washing windows, setting
the table, or fetching water. Furthermore, as
observed on VABS-3, he would have difficulty
maintaining a job for at least one year, even if it
required only 10 hours of work per week.
Impression: Decision-making in very basic
occupational skills is adequate and beyond that
it is inadequate.
OVERALL IMPRESSION:
Considering his intellectual disability, which
is at the Mild disability level, and all the other
findings mentioned above as well as considering
his spontaneous verbalizations mentioned
above; we are of the opinion that Mr. Aadith is
functioning at the level of about 8 to 10 years
old child in general. Given this, any complex
decisions that exceeds the capacity of an 8-to
10-year-old, he would not be able to make
informed decisions by himself; and even if he
makes, those decisions would be made without
considering all the options and repercussions
that come with decision making."
3.21 During his stay at NIMHANS, Bengaluru, on 22.01.2025, the
Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology assessed
394
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Aadith's speaking abilities. Their findings, as enumerated in
the handwritten report, are as follows:
"Phonology:
 • Omission of ['l'] in initial, medial, and final position.
 • Substitution of ['l'] with ['r'] in initial, medial, and
final position.
 • Substitution of ['t'] with ['s'] in initial, medial, and
final position.
Morphosyntax:
 • He uses simple, compound sentence structure in
sentences and in conversation.
 • He consistently uses morphological markers such
as bound morpheme, inflectional morpheme, free
morphemes.
 • He uses suffix, prefix to change tense.
 • He uses singular and plurals in sentences and in
conversation.
 • He compares and contrasts.
 • He uses verbs to nouns in conversation and
sentences.
 • He uses adjectives to describe objects.
 • He uses negations in the form of 'No'.
 • He can formulate questions (what, who, where).
 • He uses conjunction in conversations, sentences.
 • He produces errors in free sentences.
 • He uses time formation such as past tense, future
tense.
 • He uses singular possessions and plural
possessions in conversation and in sentences.
 • He uses adverbs (here, there).
 • He uses affixes (ing format to describe).
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
395
Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.
Semantics:
 • He understands abstract words.
 • He understands meaning of words based on
context and interprets multiple meanings.
 • He understands idiomatic expression.
 • He understands sentence structure to interpret.
 • He can understand simple meaning from a story but
has difficulty in understanding complex meanings.
 • He can understand jokes and reacts to it.
 • He has difficulty in understanding figurative
language.
 • He has difficulty in understanding inference from
a complex scenario when given.
 • He had difficulty in understanding complex false
beliefs and assumptions.
 • He has difficulty in understanding complex
synonyms, antonyms.
 • He can answer to simple 'wh' questions but has
difficulty in answering complex 'wh' questions.
Intelligibility: AYJNIHH rating scale level 02.
Impression: Inadequate speech and language and
developmental dysarthria 2° IDD & CP.
Advice:
 • Speech and language intervention.
 • Attend DT session in department.
 • Counselling.
 • Follow up during next visit to NIMHANS on Mon/
Tue/Wed/Fri @ 8:30 am."
3.22 On 03.02.2025, the Department of Clinical Psychology
administered the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) to Aadith,
396
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
to assess his understanding of interpersonal relationships. The
findings of this test are reproduced below:
"Behavioural Observations:
The patient came to the interview willingly. His
attention could be aroused and sustained. Patient
was cooperative and interested in the testing
throughout the session. He was able to comprehend
the instructions adequately.
Summary of Test Findings:
The patient's stories were reasonably imaginative
content. Although he described what was given in
the pictures he was able to attribute thoughts and
feelings to the characters. The predominant theme
that emerged from the stories was one of a family unit
enjoying various activities together such as eating,
going for a hike, planning a feast in others' home
or inviting guests over. The stories also indicated
how one has to learn and behave during various
interpersonal conflicts. He showed good problem
solving skills such as adequate communication with
others during conflicts, rethinking one's actions and
consequences."
3.23 Thereafter, on 05.02.2025, the Department of Psychiatric
Social Work prepared the Psychosocial Assessment Report
after studying parameters such as Aadith's living arrangements
throughout the years, his education, training, occupation, and
future plans. Further, exhaustive interviews were conducted with
the Appellant and Respondent No. 4, individually, to determine
their perspectives on parenting, expectations from Aadith, plans
for his future, and opinions about the other parent. The findings
are extracted as follows:
"Upbringing and living arrangements: From birth
to 2 years of age, the client lived with his parents in
Boise City, Idaho, U.S., till their separation in 2005.
From 2005 to 2007, as per the temporary orders by
the Idaho court, the client and his younger brother
[2025] 3 S.C.R.
397
Sharmila Velamur v. V. Sanjay and Ors.
stayed with their father for one whole week in a
month, while the remaining 3 weeks were spent with
their mother. After the parents' divorce in 2007, the
living arrangement changed; the children would stay
with their mother from Monday to Thursday, and their
father from Friday to Sunday, and both houses were
5 to 7 miles apart. The vacations were equally spent
with both parents separately, taking into consideration
the father's nature of the job. This practice continued
till 2017-2018, after which the mother requested an
alternative week arrangement and thus, from 2018
to 2021, the client and his younger brother stayed
with each parent on alternate weeks of the month.
During their stay with the father, he took care of
all the needs of the children by himself including
supervision, feeding and self-care, while the mother
had assistance with the same. The mother reported
that both children were cared for by the father, and
she didn't notice any behavioural changes in the client
during their stay with the father. Up to 2019, both
parents had equal joint custody, physical and
legal custody of the client. In 2019, Idaho court
granted the mother the legal custody of both
children while both parents shared the physical
custody till 2021 when the client became an adult.
The client and his younger brother stayed with
their mother from 202l to 2022, when the father
returned to India to care for his parents, which
the mother was also aware of. The father came
back to the U.S. in 2022 to meet the client and his
brother; the client lived with his father independently
from 2022 to 2024 in the U.S. In January 2024, the
client came to India with his father to stay with his
grandparents and lived here since then.
Education: The client started schooling at the age
of 5 years.