Headnote

Family Law – Child Custody – Welfare of the Child – Visitation Rights – Working Parents – Weight of Child’s Preference – Custody of a Minor Above Five Years – Distance to School and Work-from-Home Status Not Determinative – Parental Travel During COVID-19 Not an Adverse Factor.

The Supreme Court upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order granting custody of a minor boy, Arjun Wadhwa, to his father. The Court clarified that the nature of a parent’s employment (work-from-home vs office) and small differences in distance to school cannot be decisive factors in custody determinations. The Court held that criticisms of a mother’s travel during the COVID-19 period cannot automatically amount to irresponsible parenting. While recognising that the sibling bond is important, the Court placed substantial weight on the child’s expressed unwillingness to be separated from his father and the stable environment available to him there. The mother’s existing visitation rights were preserved. The custody issue remains open for adjudication before the Family Court under relevant statutes.

---

Factual Background

• The parties, both working professionals, are estranged and embroiled in multiple proceedings concerning their minor children, Arushi and Arjun.

• A lower court granted custody of Arjun to the mother in 2022, but the High Court set aside that order in 2024 and allowed the father to retain custody while leaving remedies under the Guardians and Wards Act open.

• The mother appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court attempted reconciliation, including directing mediation and facilitating meetings between the parties and their children.

• Ultimately, the parties could not settle their disputes. The appeal was heard on merits.

---

Issues

1. Whether the High Court erred by relying on the father’s work-from-home arrangement to justify awarding custody.

2. Whether the difference in distance of residences from the child’s school should influence custodial preference.

3. Whether the mother’s travel abroad during the COVID-19 period could be treated as irresponsible and weigh against her fitness.

4. Whether the child’s desire to stay with his father and the presence of extended family are valid grounds to uphold the High Court’s order.

5. Whether the mother’s visitation rights should be curtailed.

---

Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the High Court’s decision granting custody to the father, and refused to discharge the mother’s visitation rights.

---

Reasoning

1. Work-from-home vs office work is not a determinative factor

The Court expressly rejected the High Court’s underlying assumption that a parent working from home is better suited to custody:

“We… do not subscribe to the view that if one parent is working from home and the other… goes to office… the child’s interest is better served with the one at home.”

The Court emphasised modern realities of dual-income families and the irrelevance of temporary work arrangements.

2. Distance to school is not material within NCR context

The Court held that travel time differences of a few minutes or kilometres “hardly matter,” especially when both parties live in the National Capital Region.

3. Parental travel during COVID-19 is not inherently irresponsible

The High Court had viewed the mother’s foreign travel during the pandemic as irresponsible. The Supreme Court rejected this:

• The mother was vaccinated.

• Travel could be work-related or even recreational, which is not inherently harmful.

“No adverse inference could have been drawn… even vacations are important for maintaining a proper frame of mind.”

4. Child’s preference and emotional security are central

Crucially, the Court interacted with Arjun and observed that:

• He was unwilling to separate from his father.

• He enjoyed the company of his grandfather and other elders residing in the father’s home.

• He had no issue with his father and was continuing schooling without disruption.

This was consistent with the established principle that for children above five, the father’s custody is not inherently improper and the preference of a mature minor is relevant.

5. Visitation rights must continue

The Court refused the father’s request to discharge the visitation arrangement, reiterating that shifting between homes alone cannot be grounds to curtail meaningful access to the non-custodial parent.

---

Principles Affirmed

• Welfare of the child overrides technical considerations such as job type, temporary work arrangements, or minor differences in commute distance.

• Child’s preference, where independently expressed and age-appropriate, is an influential factor.

• Criticisms of a parent’s lifestyle choices must be grounded in concrete harm, not assumptions.

• Sibling bonds are important, but they cannot override the expressed comfort and welfare of the child concerned.

• Visitation rights should not be curtailed lightly; continuity of parental bonds is part of welfare.

---

Outcome

• Appeal dismissed.

• Custody remains with the father.

• Existing visitation rights of the mother continue.

• Custody issues remain open for adjudication before the Family Court under the relevant statutes.

---

Endnotes — Relevant Case Law

1. Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42 – Welfare of the child is the paramount consideration, not the legal rights of parents.

2. Roxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma, (2015) 8 SCC 318 – Preference for maternal custody of very young children; however, welfare remains the overriding factor.

3. Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh, (2017) 3 SCC 231 – Emotional needs and psychological welfare are crucial; parental hostility should not impede child’s best interests.

4. Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan, (2020) 3 SCC 67 – Visitation rights are an integral part of custody jurisprudence; shifting between homes is not inherently harmful.

5. Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu, (2008) 9 SCC 413 – Court may interact with children to ascertain their wishes; child’s preference is relevant when they are of sufficient maturity.

6. Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, (1973) 1 SCC 840 – Guardianship and custody determinations must prioritise welfare over parental claims.