The Delhi High Court reaffirmed that a child’s welfare and best interests are paramount in custody disputes, holding that parental rights or entitlements, whether of the mother or father, must yield to the child-centric welfare principle.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a landmark judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court on 23 January 2026, the bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar addressed an increasingly relevant question in family law: Does conferring physical custody on one parent diminish the other parent’s responsibility?
The Court emphatically answered no, reinforcing that both parents share ongoing duties toward their children, regardless of who holds physical custody.
Background of the Case
The appeal arose from a judgment dated 1 July 2024 passed by the Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, which directed that the custody of two minor children, aged 12 years and 6 years, be handed over to the father under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
Aggrieved by the decision, the mother approached the Delhi High Court, contending that, as the primary caregiver and biological mother, custody ought to remain with her, particularly invoking the Tender Years Doctrine.
The father, on the other hand, alleged parental alienation, systematic denial of access, and misuse of legal proceedings, including false criminal allegations.
High Court’s Findings
Tender Years Doctrine Cannot Be Applied Mechanically
Rejecting the mother’s reliance on the Tender Years Doctrine, the Court observed that the doctrine is rooted in colonial-era gender stereotypes, which presumed fathers to be breadwinners and mothers to be sole caregivers.
“In the present day and age… invocation of the Tender Years Doctrine in custody battles may no longer be apposite,”
the Court held.
The Bench emphasised that modern custody adjudication must move away from presumptive doctrines and instead be firmly anchored in the child-centric welfare principle.
Welfare of the Child Is Paramount
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, including Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali, Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, and Sheoli Hati v. Somnath Das, the Court reiterated that:
“The welfare and best interests of the child far outweigh the competing rights or entitlements of either parent.”
The Court clarified that financial superiority, biological parenthood, or claims of being a primary caregiver cannot be decisive factors in isolation.
Parental Alienation Strongly Deprecated
A significant aspect of the judgment is the Court’s strong condemnation of parental alienation.
The Bench noted that the mother had, over a prolonged period, excluded the father from the children’s lives, later claiming sole caregiving as a fait accompli.
“A parent who deliberately alienates the child from the other cannot later rely upon that exclusion to claim custody,”
the Court observed.
The Court further cautioned that allowing custody on such grounds would encourage a dangerous modus operandi in custody litigation.
Child’s Preference Not Conclusive
While acknowledging that a child’s wishes deserve due consideration, the Court warned that preferences formed in an environment of alienation cannot be treated as an absolute veto.
“The wish of the child is distinct from what is in the best interest of the child,”
the Court held, relying on Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka.
The pronounced hostility expressed by one of the children towards the father was found to be conditioned rather than spontaneous.
Separation of Siblings Discouraged
The Bench held that separating siblings during their formative years would be detrimental to their emotional stability and holistic development.
“Siblings constitute a shared emotional universe,”
the Court observed, holding that unified custody was essential.
Financial Capacity Not a Decisive Factor
The Court rejected the mother’s attempt to introduce fresh financial documents at the appellate stage, holding that such evidence could not be entertained without satisfying Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.
Even otherwise, the Court clarified:
“Comparative financial capacity, even if tilted in favour of one parent, cannot outweigh emotional security, psychological stability, and continuity.”
The Court strongly deprecated the mother’s conduct in making belated allegations of sexual abuse, noting that such claims were raised for the first time at the evidence stage and not in pleadings.
It also took note of the father’s acquittal in criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC and the quashing of proceedings under Section 406 IPC, terming the litigation an abuse of process.
Relocation Outside India Denied
The High Court also rejected the mother’s application seeking permission to relocate the children outside India, observing that such relocation would effectively sever meaningful physical contact between the father and the children.
“Childhood is not lived on screens,”
the Court remarked, holding that virtual access cannot substitute real parental presence.
Custody Granted to Father With Structured Access to Mother
Upholding the Family Court’s order, the Delhi High Court concluded that the father was best placed to provide a stable, inclusive, and balanced environment, while emphasising that the mother’s role remains vital and undiminished.
The Court directed continued financial and emotional participation by the mother through structured visitation and co-parenting arrangements.
Case Title:
SUMAN SANKAR BHUNIA versus DEBARATI BHUNIA CHAKRABORTY
CONT.CAS(C) 203/2025
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read More Reports on Custody of Minor Child
