The Delhi High Court upheld interim custody to the mother, stressing that child welfare outweighs parental allegations. It ruled that custody adjudication cannot rely on unproven imputation/accusations or moral imputations against either parent.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a father seeking interim custody of his two minor children, affirming the Family Court’s decision to grant custody to the mother. In a ruling on child welfare and custody disputes, the Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar reiterated that “the welfare of the minor child is the controlling and overriding consideration,” which supersedes the legal rights or personal claims of either parent.
Background
The parties married in March 2009 and have two children, a daughter (born 2010) and a son (born 2016). After marital discord emerged around 2023, the father moved out of the matrimonial home in New Delhi to Gurugram, taking both children with him.
The mother challenged this unilateral act before the Family Court, alleging an attempt to alienate the children. The Family Court, on August 7, 2024, ordered interim custody to the mother, granting the father visitation rights.
Aggrieved, the father appealed before the Delhi High Court.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant Father’s Arguments
The father argued:
- He had been the primary caregiver since late 2023, and the children were now “settled academically and socially” in Gurugram.
- The Family Court’s order caused a “sudden transfer of custody” without a gradual transition.
- The mother allegedly had extra-marital relationships, supported by screenshots and chat transcripts.
- The mother had “erratic and insensitive behaviour” and had allegedly influenced the daughter’s preference during the appeal.
Respondent Mother’s Arguments
The mother countered that:
- She had been the primary caregiver since the children’s birth, and the father’s act of taking them away was calculated to create a fait accompli.
- Allegations of extra-marital affairs were “wholly unsubstantiated, speculative, and intended only to malign the Respondent’s character.”
- The children’s interaction with the courts showed that the daughter voluntarily preferred living with her.
High Court’s Analysis
In its detailed judgment, the High Court, exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction, made several critical observations. The Bench firmly rejected the father’s argument that his exclusive custody since 2023 favored him:
“Such self-created, exclusive custody cannot eclipse the Respondent’s long-standing role as the children’s primary caregiver. The Family Court rightly held that a brief, unilateral arrangement could not vest the Appellant with any presumptive right to continue custody.”
The Court found no evidence supporting allegations of extra-marital conduct:
“Custody adjudication cannot turn on unproven imputations of moral conduct… absent proof that the alleged behaviour has adversely impacted the minor children, this Court cannot proceed on conjecture.”
Rejecting the father’s argument about a more comfortable lifestyle in Gurugram, the Court emphasized emotional nurturing:
“The welfare of a child cannot be measured merely in terms of luxury or affluence. At a formative age, the affection, emotional nurturing, and sense of belonging associated with maternal care are often indispensable for a child’s balanced growth.”
The Bench highlighted the father’s decision to take the children to Dubai in March 2024 in violation of the mother’s visitation rights:
“Such disregard of judicial orders… does not inspire confidence in the Appellant’s sense of responsibility as a custodial parent.”
Citing Section 17(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the Court emphasized that the daughter, mature and articulate, expressed a clear preference to reside with the mother. The Court found her preference genuine and uninfluenced.
The Bench cited the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Rosy Jacob vs Jacob A. Chakramakkal (1973), reiterating that children are not “mere chattels or playthings” and that parents’ rights must yield to the child’s holistic well-being.
The High Court found no infirmity in the Family Court’s order. The Bench concluded:
“The Impugned Order reflects a balanced, welfare-centric, and legally sound determination, warranting no interference in appellate jurisdiction.”
Directions
- The father’s appeal was dismissed.
- Current interim arrangements will continue for 8 weeks to ensure a smooth transition.
- The Family Court will monitor the children’s adjustment and ensure the sibling bond is preserved.
Case Title:
Gautam Mehra v. Sonia Mehra
MAT.APP.(F.C.) 255/2024
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Child Custody
