1. Legal Basis for Interviewing a Minor

(a) Family Courts Act, 1984

• Empowers Family Courts to adopt a less formal procedure.
• Encourages conciliation and child-sensitive hearings.
• Allows court to interact directly with parties, including children, in an informal manner.

(b) Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (Section 17)

• Courts must consider the “welfare of the minor as paramount consideration.”
• Child’s preference may be considered depending on age, maturity, and understanding.

(c) Order XXXII-A CPC

• Specifically deals with family matters and mandates welfare-oriented adjudication.

(d) UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)

• Article 12: Child has the right to express views freely in all matters affecting them, and those views must be given due weight.

2. Purpose of Interviewing the Minor

Family Courts interview minors to:

• Understand custody preference
• Assess emotional bonding with parents
• Detect influence, coercion, or alienation
• Evaluate mental and physical welfare
• Ensure child is not used as a “legal pawn”

Importantly, the court does not treat the child’s preference as decisive, but only one factor among many.

3. Manner of Interview (Judicial Practice)

Family Courts follow child-sensitive procedures such as:

• In-camera proceedings (no outsiders allowed)
• Informal chamber interaction instead of courtroom questioning
• Avoiding harsh cross-examination style
• Use of psychologists or counselors if required
• Ensuring child is not exposed to parental conflict
• Sometimes recording only judicial impressions instead of verbatim statements

4. Legal Principles Governing Child Interview

1. Welfare of child is paramount
2. Child’s preference is relevant but not binding
3. Court must ensure voluntariness and absence of pressure
4. Older and mature children’s views carry greater weight
5. Interview must avoid psychological trauma
6. Court must ensure neutrality and fairness between parents

5. Important Case Laws (Supreme Court of India)

1. Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2009)

• The Supreme Court held that custody disputes must be decided solely on child welfare, not parental rights.
• Emphasized that emotional and psychological well-being is central.
• Court may interact with child to assess true welfare situation.

2. Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu (2008)

• Court stressed that the child’s welfare overrides statutory rights of parents.
• Held that a child’s wishes must be considered but not decisive if not in welfare interest.
• Interaction with child is necessary to assess environment and safety.

3. Mausami Moitra Ganguli v. Jayant Ganguli (2008)

• Court ruled that custody cannot be decided merely on who is “better parent” morally.
• Child’s preference must be assessed carefully, especially if influenced.
• Highlighted importance of psychological assessment along with child interview.

4. Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo (2011)

• The Court emphasized that child custody matters require multi-factor evaluation including child’s wishes.
• Held that foreign or domestic relocation disputes require careful child interaction.
• Child’s stability and schooling are critical considerations.

5. Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh (2017)

• Recognized parental alienation syndrome and its effect on child preferences.
• Court warned that child interviews must detect manipulated statements.
• Stress placed on neutral, child-friendly judicial interaction.

6. Athar Hussain v. Syed Siraj Ahmed (2010)

• Reinforced that custody must ensure moral, emotional, and educational welfare.
• Court may interact with child to verify real living conditions.
• Child’s comfort and security were emphasized over formal rights.

7. Shaleen Kabra v. Shiwani Kabra (2022)

• Reaffirmed that child custody decisions must be dynamic and welfare-based.
• Court held that children’s evolving preferences must be considered over time.
• Emphasized structured judicial interaction with minors.

6. Judicial Concerns in Interviewing Minors

Courts remain cautious about:

• Emotional pressure from parents
• Coaching of children before hearing
• Trauma from repeated questioning
• Misinterpretation of child’s statements
• Age-inappropriate questioning

Hence, judges often rely on:

• Behavioral observation
• Counselors’ reports
• School and psychological assessments

7. Conclusion

Interviewing a minor in Family Courts is a sensitive judicial exercise, not a formal evidentiary interrogation. Indian courts consistently hold that:

• The child’s welfare is supreme
• The child’s voice matters but is not decisive
• The interview must be gentle, private, and psychologically safe
• Courts must ensure that children are not harmed by the legal process itself

Ultimately, the judiciary acts as a guardian of the child’s best interests, not merely an arbiter between parents.