'Childhood Not Lived On Screens': Delhi High Court Rejects 'Stereotypical' Tender Years Doctrine, Grants Custody To Father

The Delhi High Court has held that the long-standing "Tender Years Doctrine", which presumes that custody of young children should ordinarily vest with the mother, is rooted in "highly stereotypical" premises and is "no longer apposite" to contemporary custody adjudication.Observing that "childhood is not lived on screens", a Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar refused to permit the mother to relocate the children to the UK, noting that it would reduce the father's role to a mere "episodic virtual presence"."A wholesome upbringing demands more than periodic visual access; it requires the daily, tangible presence of a parent who can guide, correct, comfort, and nurture. The presence of the father in the lives of the children is not a matter of parental entitlement but a facet of the children's own right to balanced emotional development", the Court held.The observations were made while dismissing a matrimonial appeal and disposing of a connected contempt petition. The appeal challenged a Family Court judgment dated July 1, 2024, granting the father custody of two minor children, a son (approx. 12 years) and a daughter (approx. 6 years).The Appellant-mother had contended that the "tender years doctrine" continues to hold relevance and, having regard to the age of the children, particularly the younger child, custody ought ordinarily to remain with the mother.Rejecting this, the High Court remarked,"Historically, the doctrine appears to have evolved at a time when societal norms rigidly ascribed the role of breadwinner to the father and that of homemaker and primary caregiver to the mother...Such rigid compartmentalisation of parental roles no longer accords with contemporary realities".Crucially, the Court noted that the mother had relocated to the United Kingdom in August 2023 for employment, leaving the children in Bangalore with their maternal grandparents. The Bench held that the welfare of the children "would be better served in the custody of a biological parent rather than grandparents, howsoever well-intentioned".The Court thus upheld the Family Court's finding that the mother had engaged in a "sustained effort" to alienate the children from the father.Significantly, the Bench strongly deprecated the mother's conduct in levelling allegations of sexual abuse against the father regarding the minor son. Terming these allegations as a 'counterblast' to the custody proceedings, the Court observed thus: "The absence of any reference to such grave allegations at the stage of pleadings leads us to conclude that the same do not inspire confidence or appear to be genuine".The Court further noted that the son's hostility towards the father appeared to be a "conditioned or influenced response" rather than an independent preference.Applying the principle of the "best interests of the child", the High Court found no reason to interfere with the Family Court's assessment. It further held that separating the siblings, one of whom was 12 and the other 6, would be "inimical to their holistic development".The Court directed that the children continue counselling to restore the father-child bond and clarified that the mother is expected to contribute meaningfully to their education and healthcare.Appearance: Mr. Prosenjeet Banerjee, Ms. Shreya Singhal, Ms. Mhasilenuo Keditsu, Ms. Kushagra and Ms. Anshika, Advocates along with Petitioner in person; Ms. Padma Priya, Ms. Chitrangda Rastrauara, Mr. Abhijeet Singh, Mr. Anirudh Singh, Mr. Aishwary Mishra, Mr. Dhananjay Shekhawat, Mr. Sakshi Aggarwal, Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Ms. Pearl Pundir and Ms. Bhumika, Advocates for RespondentCase title: SSB v. DBCCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 111Case no.: CONT.CAS(C) 203/2025Click here to read order

'Childhood Not Lived On Screens': Delhi High Court Rejects 'Stereotypical' Tender Years Doctrine, Grants Custody To Father

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags