A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar<\/strong> 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<\/strong> to the father.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The parents got married in February 2020<\/strong> and separated in October 2023<\/strong>. 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<\/strong>. He also claimed that she was in a relationship with another married man named Amit Bhardwaj<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The mother did not appear before the Family Court for several hearings, even after non-bailable warrants<\/strong> and public notices<\/strong> were issued. Her own mother informed the court that she had eloped with Amit Bhardwaj<\/strong>, who already had a wife and two children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019s Room, Tis Hazari Courts<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, after hearing the case, the Delhi High Court upheld the Family Court\u2019s order, observing that the mother\u2019s actions showed a clear pattern of neglect and abandonment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court said \u2014<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe 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.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court further noted that her repeated absence and disregard for court orders were not minor lapses but signs of a deeper apathy<\/strong> towards her child.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cSuch 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 \u2014 considerations which are paramount in custody adjudication.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/strong> and overrides the personal rights of parents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe word \u2018welfare\u2019 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.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n In this case, the Court said the mother\u2019s elopement with a married man<\/strong>, her non-participation in proceedings<\/strong>, and her failure to care for the child<\/strong> clearly showed disregard for the child\u2019s well-being.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe record clearly reflects her continued indifference towards the guardianship proceedings, coupled with repeated disregard for the authority of the Court.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Concluding the case, the Bench stated \u2014<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Therefore, the Delhi High Court dismissed the mother\u2019s appeal<\/strong>, upholding the order that the child\u2019s interim custody should remain with the father while the mother would have limited visitation rights.<\/p>\n\n\n Case Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
![\"Delhi](\"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Delhi-High-Court-1-1024x576.webp\" "\\"\\"")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\nExplanatory Table of All Laws & Sections Referred<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Act<\/th> Section(s)<\/th> Purpose \/ Provision<\/th> How It Applies in This Case<\/th><\/tr><\/thead> Family Courts Act, 1984<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Section 19(1)<\/td> Provides right to appeal from a judgment or order of the Family Court to the High Court.<\/td> The mother filed this appeal under Section 19(1) challenging the Family Court\u2019s order granting custody to the father.<\/td><\/tr> Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (GW Act)<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Section 12<\/td> Allows court to make interim custody orders pending the final decision on guardianship.<\/td> The Family Court granted interim custody<\/strong> of the 4-year-old boy to the father under this section.<\/td><\/tr> Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (GW Act)<\/strong><\/td> Section 25<\/td> Governs permanent custody and guardianship rights of minors.<\/td> The father had filed a petition seeking permanent custody<\/strong> under Section 25, citing neglect by the mother.<\/td><\/tr> Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Section 13<\/td> States that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody cases.<\/td> The High Court reiterated that \u201cthe welfare of the child must be taken in its widest sense, including moral and ethical welfare.\u201d<\/td><\/tr> Supreme Court Precedents Cited<\/strong><\/td> Sheoli Hati v. Somnath Das, (2019) 7 SCC 490<\/td> Emphasizes that child welfare is the highest priority, above parental rights.<\/td> Used to highlight that the court\u2019s role is parens patriae<\/strong>\u2014acting as guardian for the child\u2019s best interest.<\/td><\/tr> Supreme Court Precedent<\/strong><\/td> Ashish Ranjan v. Anupma Tandon, (2010) 14 SCC 274<\/td> Welfare of the child is the sole consideration; adultery alone is not decisive.<\/td> Relied upon to show that moral and ethical welfare also matters in custody decisions.<\/td><\/tr> Supreme Court Precedent<\/strong><\/td> V. Ravi Chandran (2) v. Union of India, (2010) 1 SCC 174<\/td> Custody decisions should be based solely on the best interest of the child.<\/td> Reaffirmed by the Bench while dismissing the mother\u2019s appeal.<\/td><\/tr> Supreme Court Precedent<\/strong><\/td> Smriti Madan Kansagra v. Perry Kansagra, (2021) 12 SCC 289<\/td> Defines \u201cwelfare\u201d broadly, including physical, emotional, and ethical growth.<\/td> Quoted to explain that \u201cwelfare must be interpreted in its widest sense.\u201d<\/td><\/tr> Delhi High Court Precedent<\/strong><\/td> Vineet Gupta v. Mukta Aggarwal, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 678<\/td> Extra-marital affair alone does not disqualify a mother from custody unless it harms the child.<\/td> The Bench cited this to explain that adultery must be accompanied by neglect or harm to the child to justify custody denial.<\/td><\/tr> Bombay High Court Precedent<\/strong><\/td> Abhishek Ajit Chavan v. Gauri Abhishek Chavan, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1140<\/td> Reiterates that \u201ca bad wife is not necessarily a bad mother.\u201d<\/td> Referred to reinforce that adultery itself isn\u2019t decisive, but neglect is.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n \n
\n