The Supreme Court of India has upheld the father’s custody of a minor son, emphasizing that the welfare of the child remains paramount. The Court clarified that working from home does not automatically grant an advantage in custody battles.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India recently dismissed an appeal by a mother seeking custody of her minor son, upholding the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision that granted custody to the father. The Bench, comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, emphasized that the welfare of the child remains paramount, even as it clarified that a parent working from home does not automatically qualify for better childcare.
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from the High Court of Punjab and Haryana’s order dated July 1, 2024 (CRR No. 2069/2022), which overturned earlier orders from July and September 2022 that had granted custody to the mother. At the time of the initial court decisions, the child was under five years old, but during the pendency of the case, the child crossed the age of five.
The Supreme Court had earlier urged both parties to explore mediation, noting that the dispute arose from attitudinal differences rather than misconduct between the two financially independent working professionals. Despite interim arrangements to facilitate joint planning and outings, no settlement could be reached.
Arguments by the Parties
Mother’s (Appellant) Arguments
The mother contended that the High Court had given undue weight to the fact that the father worked from home, while she, an Associate Manager at Virtusa, had long office hours. She argued that her flexible job allowed her to provide adequate care for her son and that working outside the home should not be seen as a disadvantage in custody considerations.
She also challenged the Court’s claim regarding the distance to the child’s school, Heritage School in Vasant Kunj, noting that her residence was equally convenient or even closer. Additionally, the mother emphasized the importance of sibling companionship, pointing out that her daughter was in her custody and that her son “desperately seeks” his sister’s company.
Finally, she refuted the High Court’s adverse remarks about her traveling abroad during the COVID-19 period, asserting that she was fully vaccinated and had traveled for work purposes, which she argued should not reflect negatively on her ability to care for her child.
Father’s (Respondent) Arguments
The father supported the High Court’s decision and applied to discharge the mother’s visitation rights, claiming that moving the child between homes disrupted his development and psyche.
Supreme Court Observations
The Supreme Court clarified several important points for custody disputes involving working parents:
Working from Home vs. Office Work:
The Court rejected the assumption that a parent working from home automatically provides better care:
“We do not subscribe to the view that if one parent is working from home and the other not… then it has to be inferred that the child’s interest would be better served if placed in the custody of one who does not go to the office for work.”
Travel During COVID-19:
The Court held that the mother’s travel was not a valid reason for an adverse inference:
“Even vacations are important and necessary for a person to maintain a proper frame of mind. Therefore, no adverse inference could have been drawn.”
Welfare of the Child:
The Court emphasized the child’s present wishes, noting that he expressed unwillingness to part with his father, had continuity in education, and had a supportive family environment.
Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the mother’s appeal, affirming the High Court’s order that custody remains with the father. However, the Court rejected the father’s application seeking to terminate the mother’s visitation rights:
“The application of the respondent seeking discharge of the visitation rights granted vide order dated 3rd May 2024… is rejected.”
The Court also clarified that the parties may pursue further remedies under relevant statutes before the Family Court if needed.
Case Title:
POONAM WADHWA VERSUS AJAY WADHWA & ORS.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.12458/2024
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Child Custody
