Supreme Court: While considering this appeal challenging Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision to allow a revision petition filed by the father thereby setting aside the order on grant of custody of the minor son to the mother; the Division Bench of Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ., explained that the parties who are working parents, it is expected that they cannot always be physically with their children, however, this cannot be a ground to place the child’s custody with the parent who may be temporarily working from home because, “It is a matter of common knowledge that to meet individual as well as family aspirations married couples have to work to build a proper home and most importantly to secure better education for their ward which is getting costlier day by day”.
The Court, therefore, declined to subscribe to the view that if one parent is working from home and the other is not, then it has to be inferred that child’s interest would be better served if he is placed in the custody of the parent who works from home.
Background:
The Family Court had passed a custody order in favour of the mother, as the son was below 5 years of age; however, during the pendency of the proceedings, the son crossed the age of 5 years. The High Court while passing the impugned order left it open for the parties to avail their remedy for seeking custody of minor children in proceedings under the relevant statutes, which were stated to be pending before the Family Court.
The Supreme Court while interacting with the son and his sister, passed an order noting that the children wanted to live together and gave a chance to the parents to peacefully avail opportunity of resolving their differences and gave an interim order to stay the pending proceedings in all courts.
When the matter was taken up in November, the Court was informed that that the parties could not resolve their differences and are not able to live together and that the mother wanted divorce by mutual consent which was not agreeable to the father. Consequently, the Court observed that there was no chance of a settlement between the parties.
Meanwhile the Court took note of the mother’s contentions who pointed out certain paragraphs from the impugned order wherein it was recorded that the father works from home, whereas the mother has long working hours. The mother contended that the aforesaid observation creates an impression that better care could be provided by the parent who works from home than the one who works at the office.
Per contra, the father contended that a minor child cannot be shifted from one home to the other as it has an element of disturbing the psyche of the child which might be detrimental to his overall development.
Court’s Assessment:
Perusing the matter, the Court refused to subscribe to the view that inference of better childcare can be drawn if the child is placed in the custody of the parent who works from home. The Court further added that distance from home to school is not a relevant consideration particularly when both sides reside in National Capital Region and the child is required to travel some distance for better education. Moreover, it hardly matters whether travel time is few minutes less or more.
The Court further pointed out that the view taken by the High Court in the impugned order that mother exhibited an irresponsible conduct by travelling abroad during Covid-19 period, may not be a relevant consideration particularly when, according to her claim, she was duly vaccinated and such travel was the requirement of her job. Though the claim of the father was that such travel was not in connection with her job but to celebrate her vacations. “Be that as it may, even vacations are important and necessary for a person to maintain a proper frame of mind. Therefore, no adverse inference could have been drawn against the appellant on that ground”.
The Court however noted that the minor son was not willing to part from the company of the father and the presence of elderly grandparents in the father’s house. The Court having regard to the fact that the male child is now above five years old and he continues to be in the same school where he was studying earlier and has no issues with his own father and is not willing to part company of his father, stated that an interference with the order passed by the High Court is not required, particularly in view of the fact that the mother has visitation rights as directed earlier by Supreme Court.
Further, it was noted that the High Court did not close the custody issue rather it gave the mother right to seek custody and pursue remedies under relevant statutes. Consequently, the Court did not find a good reason to disturb the operative portion of the impugned order and dismissed the present appeal. The application of the father seeking discharge of the visitation rights granted by the Supreme Court in May 2024 was rejected.
[A v. B, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.12458/2024, order dated 25-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Ms. Preeti Singh, AOR Mr. Sunklan Porwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Ms. Tina Garg, AOR Mr. Anuraj Jain, Adv. Mr. M.K. Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Preeti, Adv.