Unproven Immoral Acts Of Parent Not Relevant When Deciding Child's Custody: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday observed that adjudication in child custody matters cannot turn on “unproven imputations of moral conduct” by one parent on another. A division bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said that in custody disputes, welfare of the minor child is the controlling and overriding consideration, transcending the legal...
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday observed that adjudication in child custody matters cannot turn on “unproven imputations of moral conduct” by one parent on another.
A division bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said that in custody disputes, welfare of the minor child is the controlling and overriding consideration, transcending the legal rights of either parent.
“While the financial stability or affluence of a parent may constitute one relevant factor, it can never, by itself, outweigh the emotional security, sense of belonging, and continuity of care that underpins a child's holistic well-being,” the Court said.
The Bench dismissed an appeal filed by a husband challenging a family court order whereby interim custody of the two minor children was directed to be with the mother. The father was granted defined visitation rights.
The Court noted that the father had temporary physical custody of the children after shifting with them to Gurugram in the latter half of 2023 but the custody was unilaterally assumed following domestic discord, when the parties and the minors had till then been residing together in the matrimonial home.
“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 said.
It rejected the husband's contention that the Family Court had ordered a sudden transfer of custody. The Court said that it was the husband who had abruptly moved out of the matrimonial home and relocated with the minor children to Gurugram, thereby disturbing the status quo.
On his allegations of extra-marital relationships of the wife with certain individuals, the Court said that such allegations were unsubstantiated and that the Family Court found no admissible or credible evidence to support the same.
“….and the Appellant has, even at this stage, failed to establish any such conduct. In any event, absent proof that the alleged behaviour has adversely impacted the minor children, this Court cannot proceed on conjecture. Custody adjudication cannot turn on unproven imputations of moral conduct,” it said.
Furthermore, the Bench noted that both the Family Court and High Court had independently interacted with the minor children on multiple occasions to ascertain their comfort, maturity, and preferences.
“While it is true that the Appellant has provided the children with material comforts and a secure financial environment, such factors alone cannot be determinative. 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 Family Court, therefore, rightly accorded weight to the maternal bond rather than to material considerations,” the Court said.
Counsel for Appellant: Ms. Malavika Rajkotia, Mr. Mayank Grover and Ms. Sara Singh, Advocates with Appellant in person
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, Ms. Neha Jain, Ms. Vidhi Bangia, Ms. Sneha Mathew, Ms. Avni Soni, Ms. Aamya and Ms. Vaishnavi Saxena, Advocates with Respondent in person
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1522