The Delhi High Court on October 8, 2025 dismissed an appeal by an appellant mother to retain custody rights of a child. Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan held that the appellant had repeatedly failed to appear before the Family Court, disobeyed its directions, and displayed continued indifference towards the welfare of the minor showing stark neglect of parental duties.
The case arose when the appellant Wife and respondent Husband started living separately October 27, 2023 wherein the Husband alleged that the Wife frequently left the matrimonial home without notice, leaving the child unattended while committing adultery with a married man named Amit Bharadwaj. Following this, the Husband filed a guardianship petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, seeking custody of the minor child along with an application under Section 12 of the ACt for interim custody. The family court granted interim custody of the minor to the Husband and restricted the Wife’s visitation to every Sunday between 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. at the Children’s Room, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The Wife challenged the order contending that the Family Court’s findings regarding her alleged adulterous relationship were baseless and that as the biological mother and natural guardian, the welfare of the child would be best served in her care. The Wife, further asserted that her decision to stay separately was compelled by circumstances in the matrimonial home and not due to the allegations, arguing that the Family Court had erred in drawing conclusions from a misunderstanding.
The Court after examination held that a mere allegation of an adulterous relationship cannot, by itself, determine custody rights, such conduct assumes relevance when accompanied by neglect or parental duties The Court relied on cases such as, Vineet Gupta v. Mukta Aggarwal 2024 SCC Del 678, Abhishek Ajit Chavan v. Gauri Abhishek Chavan 52024 SCC OnLine Bom 1140, Sheoli Hati v. Somnath Das (2019) 7 SCC 490, Ashish Ranjan v. Anupma Tandon, and V. Ravi Chandran (2) v. Union of India (2010) 14 SCC 274 and stated that the child’s welfare and best interests remained the paramount reconsideration beyond the personal rights of the either parent. The Court found Wife’s whole conduct reflected a conscious disregard for the stability and security necessary for the child’s well-being. Therefore, finding no error in the Family Court’s reasoning, the Court upheld the order granting interim custody to the Husband while retaining visitation rights for the Wife. Accordingly the appeal, being devoid of merits, was dismissed with terms with no order as to costs.
Appearances:
For the Appellant- Adv. Pramod Kumar
For the Respondent- Nemo
