Recently, the Supreme Court held that a parent’s work-from-home arrangement cannot, by itself, form the basis for granting custody of a minor. Emphasising the realities of dual-income households, the Bench declared that “We... 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.” Despite disagreeing with the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s reasoning, the Court ultimately declined to alter the operative direction granting custody of the child to his father.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from an order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court allowing the father’s revision and setting aside earlier orders that had placed a five year old child in the custody of his mother. During the proceedings, the child crossed the age of five. The Apex Court interacted with both children, and, through an interim order passed in August 2025, stayed all inter se proceedings for three months while encouraging the parents to attempt reconciliation. However, the parties later informed the Court that no settlement was possible.
Contentions:
The mother challenged several observations in the High Court’s judgment. She argued that the reference to the father working from home and her own longer office hours created an improper inference about parental availability. She submitted that she also had the flexibility to work remotely and that such factors should not have influenced the custody determination. She further disputed the High Court’s reliance on the distance between her residence and the child’s school, asserting that the travel time was comparable. Additionally, she questioned the Court’s remark regarding her travel abroad during the COVID-19 period, contending that she was fully vaccinated and that any such travel, even if for personal reasons, could not be treated as irresponsible. She also highlighted that Arjun “desperately seeks for his sister’s company,” arguing that placing both children together would better serve their welfare.
On the other hand, the father defended the High Court’s view and sought discharge of the visitation rights earlier granted to the mother, arguing that frequent movement between the two households could unsettle the child and impede his emotional development.
Observation of the Court:
The Bench examined the broader considerations governing custody and noted that “both parents are working parents and, therefore, it is expected that they cannot always be physically with their children.” Rejecting the High Court’s inference on parental availability, the Court held that employment duties, whether performed from home or an office, cannot be a determinative factor.
The Court also observed that marginal differences in travel time within the National Capital Region were immaterial, as “it hardly matters whether travel time is few minutes less or more.” Further, the Court clarified that travel during the Covid-19 period, even for vacations, could not be the basis for an adverse finding, remarking that “no adverse inference could have been drawn” against the mother on that ground.
However, the Bench placed weight on the child’s expressed preference and emotional comfort. It noted that “What is important is that from our interactions with Arjun we noticed that he was not willing to part company of his father.” The Court also considered that the son continued in the same school and had the support of his grandfather and other elder family members at his father’s home.
While finding that certain observations of the High Court “ought not to have weighed”, the Apex Court concluded that the child’s welfare did not warrant interference with the ultimate direction granting custody to the father. It held that “Consequently, we do not find a good reason to disturb the operative portion of the impugned order.”
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court dismissed the appeal and rejected the father’s plea seeking discharge of the mother’s visitation rights, which continue as previously ordered. Parties were left to bear their own costs.
Case Title: Poonam Wadhwa Vs. Ajay Wadhwa & Ors.
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.12458/2024
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Manoj Misra, Hon’ble Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Advocate for the Petitioner: AOR Preeti Singh, Adv. Sunklan Porwal,
Advocate for the Respondent: AOR Tina Garg, Advs. Anuraj Jain, M.K. Ghosh, Preeti
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
