Parent's Work-From-Home Status Alone Cannot Determine Child Custody : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that merely because a parent is working from home would not entitle him/her a custody of a child. The Court stressed that a parent can't always be available with the child, and has to go out to earn a livelihood, which shouldn't deprive the parent to avail the custody of a child. “We, therefore, do not subscribe to the view that if one parent is working from home...
The Supreme Court observed that merely because a parent is working from home would not entitle him/her a custody of a child. The Court stressed that a parent can't always be available with the child, and has to go out to earn a livelihood, which shouldn't deprive the parent to avail the custody of a child.
“We, therefore, do not subscribe to the view that if one parent is working from home and the other not (i.e., has to visit his office for work) then it has to be inferred that child's interest would be better served if he is placed in the custody of one who does not go to office for work.”, observed a bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan while hearing the mother's appeal challenging the grant of custody to the father.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court had awarded custody to the father on the premise that his work-from-home arrangement better served the child's interests.
Although the Court declined to disturb the High Court's ultimate decision granting custody to the respondent-father in view of the child's welfare, as the child was not willing to part company with his father and had the company of his grandfather, it disagreed with the High Court's reasoning that custody should be awarded merely because a parent works from home.
“What is important is that from our interactions with Arjun we noticed that he was not willing to part company of his father. We also took notice of the fact that his father has few elder members at home including Arjun's grandfather who are giving company to the child. In such circumstances, 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 he has no issues with his own father and is not willing to part company of his father, an interference with the order passed by the High Court is not required…”, the court observed.
“Consequently, we do not find a good reason to disturb the operative portion (granting custody to the father) of the impugned order.”, the court held.
Cause Title: POONAM WADHWA VERSUS AJAY WADHWA & ORS.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1165
Appearance:
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.