The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a father seeking interim custody of his two minor children, affirming the Family Court’s decision to grant custody to the mother. The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar ruled that the father’s act of unilaterally removing the children from the matrimonial home could not create a “presumptive right” to continue custody, nor could it overshadow the mother’s long-standing role as the primary caregiver. The Court reiterated that in custody matters, the “welfare of the minor child is the controlling and overriding consideration,” which transcends the legal rights of the parents.
Background of the Case
The appeal arose from a matrimonial dispute between the Appellant (Father) and the Respondent (Mother), who were married on March 3, 2009. The couple has two children: a daughter born in 2010 and a son born in 2016. The family initially resided together at the matrimonial home in New Delhi.
Around 2023, marital discord emerged, leading the Appellant to file a petition for dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. During the pendency of these proceedings, the Appellant shifted from the matrimonial home to an apartment in Gurugram, taking both minor children with him.
The Respondent-mother filed applications seeking interim custody, alleging that the father’s act was unilateral and intended to alienate the children. Conversely, the Appellant claimed the move was necessary due to tension at the matrimonial home.
On August 7, 2024, the Family Court passed a detailed order directing that the interim custody of both children be handed over to the Respondent-mother, subject to visitation rights for the Appellant. The Family Court observed that the children had resided with both parents jointly since birth and that there was no credible material to suggest the mother was unfit.
Aggrieved by this order, the Appellant approached the High Court.
Contentions of the Parties
Arguments for the Appellant (Father): The Appellant argued that he had been the primary caregiver since the latter half of 2023. He contended that the children were settled academically and socially in Gurugram under his care. His counsel submitted that the Family Court’s order for a “sudden transfer of custody” disrupted the children’s routine without ensuring a gradual transition.
The Appellant further alleged that the Respondent had “extra-marital relationships,” relying on screenshots and chat transcripts to claim her conduct was unbecoming of a parent. He also accused the Respondent of “erratic and insensitive behaviour” and alleged that she had “manipulated” the daughter into expressing a preference to reside with her during the pendency of the appeal.
Arguments for the Respondent (Mother): The Respondent argued that she had been the primary caregiver since the children’s birth. She termed the Appellant’s removal of the children as an act calculated to create a fait accompli.
Regarding the allegations of extra-marital affairs, her counsel submitted they were “wholly unsubstantiated, speculative, and intended only to malign the Respondent’s character.” She emphasized that the Family Court and the High Court had interacted with the children, and the elder child had expressed a clear, voluntary preference to reside with her.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Division Bench, exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction, focused primarily on the welfare of the children.
1. On Unilateral Custody: The Court rejected the Appellant’s claim to custody based on his caregiving since 2023. The Bench observed:
“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.”
2. On Allegations of Misconduct: The Court found the allegations regarding the Respondent’s extra-marital relationships to be unproven. The judgment stated:
“Custody adjudication cannot turn on unproven imputations of moral conduct… absent proof that the alleged behaviour has adversely impacted the minor children, this Court cannot proceed on conjecture.”
3. On Financial Status vs. Emotional Welfare: Addressing the Appellant’s argument regarding the comfortable environment he provided, the Court held:
“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.”
4. Conduct of the Appellant: The Court took adverse note of the Appellant’s conduct, specifically highlighting an incident where he took the children to Dubai in March 2024 in violation of a court order granting the mother visitation. The Bench remarked:
“Such disregard of judicial orders… does not inspire confidence in the Appellant’s sense of responsibility as a custodial parent.”
5. Child’s Preference: Citing Section 17(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the Court noted that the daughter, being of an impressionable age, was “mature, articulate, and clear in her preference to live with the Respondent.” The Court found this preference to be genuine and uninfluenced.
Legal Precedent: The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Rosy Jacob vs Jacob A. Chakramakkal (1973), reinforcing that children are not “mere chattels or playthings” and that parental rights must yield to the child’s holistic well-being.
Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity in the Family Court’s Impugned Order. The Court concluded that the Respondent, being the natural guardian, was better positioned to ensure emotional stability.
Key Directions:
- The appeal was dismissed.
- The interim arrangements currently in force shall continue for a period of 08 weeks to allow for a transition.
- The Family Court was requested to monitor the children’s adjustment and ensure the preservation of sibling bonds, as the son was currently with the father while the daughter was with the mother.
The Bench concluded:
“The Impugned Order reflects a balanced, welfare-centric, and legally sound determination, warranting no interference in appellate jurisdiction.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Gautam Mehra v. Sonia Mehra
- Case Number: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 255/2024
- Bench: Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
- Date of Judgment: November 18, 2025
