"Best Interests Of Children Principle" Must Override The "Tender Years Doctrine": Delhi High Court Grants Custody To Father

The Court was hearing an appeal arising from a guardianship proceeding instituted under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, challenging an order of the Family Court which had granted custody of two minor children to the father, along with detailed directions governing visitation, interaction, and information-sharing with the mother.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, while stating that “this doctrine is founded on a highly stereotypical premise”, further held that “it would, therefore, be more prudent for courts to anchor the adjudication of custody disputes firmly in the overarching principle of the best interests of the children, rather than in presumptive doctrines”.

Background

The dispute arose out of matrimonial discord between the parties, which led to prolonged litigation across multiple forums, including criminal proceedings, domestic violence proceedings, maintenance proceedings, and guardianship proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act.

The father had approached the court seeking custody of the minor children, alleging sustained parental alienation and obstruction of access. The mother opposed the custody claim, asserting that she was the primary caregiver and invoking the Tender Years Doctrine to contend that custody ought to remain with her, particularly in view of the age of the younger child.

The Family Court, after evaluating the pleadings, evidence, and counselling reports, returned findings on parental alienation, conduct of the parties, repeated relocation of the children, and the overall welfare of the minors. The Family Court concluded that the children’s best interests would be served by granting custody to the father and issued structured directions regarding visitation, communication, counselling, and restrictions on relocation.

Aggrieved by the Family Court’s decision, the mother preferred the present appeal before the Delhi High Court, assailing the findings on welfare, parental alienation, and custody, and reiterating her reliance on the Tender Years Doctrine and her role as primary caregiver.

Court’s Observation

The High Court considered the scope and relevance of the Tender Years Doctrine and held that it cannot be applied as a rigid or presumptive rule. The Court noted that the doctrine is founded on traditional assumptions regarding parental roles and does not reflect present social realities, particularly where both parents are educated and professionally engaged.

The Court reiterated that the paramount consideration in custody matters is the welfare and best interests of the child. It held that custody cannot be decided based on gender-based presumptions and that maternal preference cannot override a fact-specific assessment of the child’s welfare.

The High Court relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and coordinate Benches to hold that the best interests of the child must prevail over the Tender Years Doctrine. The Court noted that custody adjudication requires a holistic and child-centric approach.

The Court referred to the factors identified by the Supreme Court in Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali, including the maturity and judgment of the parents, mental and emotional stability, ability to provide access to schooling, moral character, capacity to ensure continuity in the child’s life, financial sufficiency, and the nature and quality of the parent-child relationship. The Court held that these factors must be assessed collectively.

The High Court examined the findings of the Family Court on parental conduct and access. It took note of the material indicating interference with access and the impact of prolonged separation from one parent. The Court held that sustained denial of meaningful access is a relevant factor in assessing the child’s welfare.

The Court also considered the issue of parental alienation and held that conduct which tends to distance the child from one parent is detrimental to the child’s emotional and psychological well-being. It was observed that such conduct weighs against the parent responsible for alienation in custody adjudication.

The High Court examined the issue of continuity and stability in the children’s lives. It held that frequent changes, disruption of routine, and instability are relevant considerations and that custody arrangements must promote emotional security and consistency.

The Court further considered the importance of keeping siblings together. It held that the separation of siblings would be detrimental to their emotional development and that unified upbringing is an important factor in assessing the children’s welfare.

The Court also considered the expressed preferences of the children. It held that while the views of the children are a relevant consideration, such preferences cannot be treated as determinative where there is material indicating influence, restricted access, or prolonged alienation.

The High Court reiterated that financial capacity alone cannot be decisive in custody matters and that welfare transcends material considerations. It held that emotional support, stability, and balanced parental involvement are equally material.

On an overall assessment of these factors, theCourt found that the custody arrangement affirmed by the Family Court was in furtherance of the children’s welfare, stability, and holistic development.

Conclusion

Affirming the judgment of the Family Court, the Delhi High Court upheld the grant of custody of the minor children to the father, holding that the best interests and welfare of the children override the Tender Years Doctrine.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the directions issued by the Family Court governing custody, visitation, counselling, and interaction were affirmed. All connected proceedings were disposed of in terms of the judgment.

Cause Title: SSB v. DBC (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:549-DB)

Appearances

Appellant: Advocates Prosenjeet Banerjee, Shreya Singhal, Mhasilenuo Keditsu, Kushagra and Anshika

Respondent: Advocates Padma Priya, Chitrangda Rastrauara, Abhijeet Singh, Anirudh Singh, Aishwary Mishra, Dhananjay Shekhawat, Sakshi Aggarwal, Yuvraj Singh, Pearl Pundir and Bhumika

Click here to read/download Judgment