Delay In Deciding Custody Matters Causes Prejudice To Child: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that delay in deciding child custody disputes itself causes prejudice to the child, while cautioning against a recurring pattern of approaching courts to stall handover of child to the spouse.A Division Bench of Justices Tejas Karia and Madhu Jain made the observation while dismissing a mother's appeal against a Family Court order granting the father...
The Delhi High Court has observed that delay in deciding child custody disputes itself causes prejudice to the child, while cautioning against a recurring pattern of approaching courts to stall handover of child to the spouse.
A Division Bench of Justices Tejas Karia and Madhu Jain made the observation while dismissing a mother's appeal against a Family Court order granting the father interim custody of their minor daughter during the summer vacations.
The Court underscored that the welfare of the child remains the paramount consideration in custody matters and stressed that the minor has a right to develop and maintain a meaningful relationship with both parents.
"Delay in custody matters itself causes prejudice to the child. The minor child has a right to meaningful time with both her parents. A consistent pattern of approaching Courts on the eve of vacation periods to stall the handover of the child, if countenanced, would be detrimental to the child's welfare and her relationship with both parents," the Bench observed.
The mother had challenged the Family Court's order permitting the father to have interim custody of the child during the vacation period, contending that he had failed to comply with earlier visitation arrangements and was incapable of independently caring for the child.
Rejecting the contention, the High Court noted that the mother herself had no objection to the father taking custody of the child during his stay in India. In such circumstances, her argument that he was incapable of caring for the child on his own while residing in London could not be accepted.
It also declined to entertain allegations regarding violation of earlier visitation orders in the present proceedings, observing that such grievances could be addressed in appropriate contempt proceedings and could not justify denying the child meaningful time with the father.
As such, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the interim custody arrangement in favour of the father.
Appearance: Mr. Rohit Khurana, Ms. Akshara Santosh, Advocates for Appellant; Mr. C.M. Grover, Advocate for Respondent
Case title: G v. M
Case no.: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 211/2026