The Delhi High Court ruled that adultery alone can’t decide custody, but when combined with neglect and abandonment, it justifies denying a mother interim custody. The Court upheld giving a four-year-old boy’s care to his father.
Mother In Adulterous Relationship Loses Custody Over Child: The Delhi High Court has made a strong statement that a mother’s adultery alone is not enough to take away her child’s custody — but when such conduct comes along with neglect and failure to fulfill her duties as a mother, it can cost her the child’s custody.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar made this ruling while dismissing an appeal filed by a mother against the order of a family court that gave interim custody of her 4-year-old son to the father.
The parents got married in February 2020 and separated in October 2023. The father told the court that his wife had left the matrimonial home several times without informing anyone and sometimes even left the child alone. He also claimed that she was in a relationship with another married man named Amit Bhardwaj.
The mother did not appear before the Family Court for several hearings, even after non-bailable warrants and public notices were issued. Her own mother informed the court that she had eloped with Amit Bhardwaj, who already had a wife and two children.
In these circumstances, the Family Court gave interim custody to the father and allowed the mother to meet the child only on Sundays for two hours at the Children’s Room, Tis Hazari Courts.
The mother then challenged the order before the High Court, saying she was the biological mother and natural guardian and should not be denied custody.
However, after hearing the case, the Delhi High Court upheld the Family Court’s order, observing that the mother’s actions showed a clear pattern of neglect and abandonment.
The Court said —
“We are of the considered opinion that, albeit the mere allegation or even proof of an adulterous liaison, cannot singularly constitute the determinative ground for grant or denial of custody of the child, yet when such conduct is viewed in conjunction with the contemporaneous acts of deliberate neglect and the conscious abdication of maternal obligations, the cumulative effect thereof justifies the course adopted by the learned family court.”
The Court further noted that her repeated absence and disregard for court orders were not minor lapses but signs of a deeper apathy towards her child.
“Such conduct is not a mere procedural lapse but is indicative of a deeper apathy towards the welfare of the minor child. This position stands fortified by the Report of the SHO, which records that for nearly two years the Appellant displayed habitual neglect and irresponsible abandonment, thereby imperiling the well-being and best interests of the child — considerations which are paramount in custody adjudication.”
The Bench cited earlier judgments, including Vineet Gupta v. Mukta Aggarwal (Delhi HC, 2024) and Abhishek Ajit Chavan v. Gauri Abhishek Chavan (Bombay HC, 2024), both of which held that adultery by itself does not make a mother unfit for custody unless it affects the welfare of the child.
The judges also referred to several Supreme Court rulings such as Sheoli Hati v. Somnath Das, Ashish Ranjan v. Anupma Tandon, and Smriti Madan Kansagra v. Perry Kansagra, which have all emphasized that the welfare of the child is paramount and overrides the personal rights of parents.
“The word ‘welfare’ used in Section 13 of the Act has to be construed literally and must be taken in its widest sense. The moral and ethical welfare of the child must also weigh with the court as well as its physical well-being.”
In this case, the Court said the mother’s elopement with a married man, her non-participation in proceedings, and her failure to care for the child clearly showed disregard for the child’s well-being.
“The record clearly reflects her continued indifference towards the guardianship proceedings, coupled with repeated disregard for the authority of the Court.”
Concluding the case, the Bench stated —
“The mere allegation or even proof of an adulterous liaison cannot singularly constitute the determinative ground for grant or denial of custody of the child, yet when such conduct is viewed in conjunction with deliberate neglect and the conscious abdication of maternal obligations, the cumulative effect thereof justifies the course adopted by the Family Court.”
Therefore, the Delhi High Court dismissed the mother’s appeal, upholding the order that the child’s interim custody should remain with the father while the mother would have limited visitation rights.
Explanatory Table of All Laws & Sections Referred
| Law / Act | Section(s) | Purpose / Provision | How It Applies in This Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Family Courts Act, 1984 | Section 19(1) | Provides right to appeal from a judgment or order of the Family Court to the High Court. | The mother filed this appeal under Section 19(1) challenging the Family Court’s order granting custody to the father. |
| Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (GW Act) | Section 12 | Allows court to make interim custody orders pending the final decision on guardianship. | The Family Court granted interim custody of the 4-year-old boy to the father under this section. |
| Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (GW Act) | Section 25 | Governs permanent custody and guardianship rights of minors. | The father had filed a petition seeking permanent custody under Section 25, citing neglect by the mother. |
| Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 | Section 13 | States that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody cases. | The High Court reiterated that “the welfare of the child must be taken in its widest sense, including moral and ethical welfare.” |
| Supreme Court Precedents Cited | Sheoli Hati v. Somnath Das, (2019) 7 SCC 490 | Emphasizes that child welfare is the highest priority, above parental rights. | Used to highlight that the court’s role is parens patriae—acting as guardian for the child’s best interest. |
| Supreme Court Precedent | Ashish Ranjan v. Anupma Tandon, (2010) 14 SCC 274 | Welfare of the child is the sole consideration; adultery alone is not decisive. | Relied upon to show that moral and ethical welfare also matters in custody decisions. |
| Supreme Court Precedent | V. Ravi Chandran (2) v. Union of India, (2010) 1 SCC 174 | Custody decisions should be based solely on the best interest of the child. | Reaffirmed by the Bench while dismissing the mother’s appeal. |
| Supreme Court Precedent | Smriti Madan Kansagra v. Perry Kansagra, (2021) 12 SCC 289 | Defines “welfare” broadly, including physical, emotional, and ethical growth. | Quoted to explain that “welfare must be interpreted in its widest sense.” |
| Delhi High Court Precedent | Vineet Gupta v. Mukta Aggarwal, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 678 | Extra-marital affair alone does not disqualify a mother from custody unless it harms the child. | The Bench cited this to explain that adultery must be accompanied by neglect or harm to the child to justify custody denial. |
| Bombay High Court Precedent | Abhishek Ajit Chavan v. Gauri Abhishek Chavan, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1140 | Reiterates that “a bad wife is not necessarily a bad mother.” | Referred to reinforce that adultery itself isn’t decisive, but neglect is. |
Case Summary
- Case Title: K.N. vs D.N., MAT.APP.(F.C.) 345/2025
- Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
- Type of Case: Matrimonial Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984
- Impugned Order: Dated 08.07.2025 — passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court-02, West District, Tis Hazari, Delhi
- Date of Judgment (Delhi HC): 08 October 2025
- Judgment Reserved On: 22 September 2025
- Appellant: K.N. (Mother)
- Respondent: D.N. (Father)
- Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate
- Counsel for Respondent: Nemo (No appearance)
- Citation: K.N. vs D.N., MAT.APP.(F.C.) 345/2025, decided on 08.10.2025
- Trial Court Case: Guardianship Petition No. 127/2023, Dipender Nath v. Karuna Nath
- Police Report Reference: SHO Prem Nagar, Delhi (Report by SI Sandeep Chauhan)
- Result: Appeal Dismissed — Interim Custody with Father Upheld; Limited Visitation to Mother
- Key Takeaways:
- The Delhi High Court made it clear that adultery alone is not enough to deny a mother custody.
- But if adultery is accompanied by neglect and abandonment of a child, the mother can lose custody.
- The Court prioritized the child’s emotional, moral, and physical welfare above all else.
- The father’s custody was upheld because the mother had repeatedly ignored court orders, abandoned her child, and failed to appear before the court.
- The judgment reinforces that welfare of the child is supreme, not the rights or moral standing of the parents.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised