Work-From-Home Status Of One Parent Cannot Be Ground To Refuse Custody Of Child To Other: Supreme Court

The bench disagreed with the observation made by the High Court that the child’s interest will be served better if he is placed in the custody of one who does not go to the office.

The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “It is not in dispute that both parents are working parents and, therefore, it is expected that they cannot always be physically with their children. But this cannot be a ground to place the custody of the child with the one who may be temporarily working from home because it is a matter of common knowledge that to meet individual as well as family aspirations married couples have to work to build a proper home and most importantly to secure better education for their ward which is getting costlier day by day. We, therefore, 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.”

AOR Preeti Singh appeared on behalf of the Appellant, whereas AOR Tina Garg appeared for the Respondents.

An appeal was filed impugning an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the High Court allowed a Revision Petition of the Respondent-Father and set aside the order by which the Appellant-wife was given the custody of their minor son.

The Appellant-wife submitted that the High Court recorded that the Respondent-Father, who is employed with a Company, is discharging his duties by working from home, whereas the Appellant-wife has long working hours. It was stated by the Appellant-wife that the aforesaid observation creates an impression that better care could be provided by the parent who works from home than the one who works at the office.

The Court said, “It is submitted that nature of the job of Poonam Wadhwa is such that she could also work from home and, therefore, this was not a relevant consideration for the High Court to place the minor son in the custody of his father.”

The other issue for the Court’s consideration was regarding the distance of the school of the child from where the mother resides, as compared to the place where the father resides.

“Likewise, in our view, distance from home to school is not a relevant consideration particularly when both sides reside in National Capital Region and the child is required to travel some distance for better education. Moreover, it hardly matters whether travel time is few minutes less or more.”, the Bench observed.

The Court also disagreed with the view of the High Court that the Appellant-mother exhibited irresponsible conduct by travelling abroad during the COVID-19 period. The Bench said that even vacations are important and necessary for a person to maintain a proper frame of mind.

Consequently, the Court refused to disturb the operative part of the impugned order, accordingly dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: Poonam Wadhwa v. Ajay Wadhwa & Ors. [SLP(Crl.) No. 12458 of 2024]

Appearances:

Appellant: AOR Preeti Singh and Advocate Sunklan Porwal

Respondents: AOR Tina Garg, Advocates Anuraj Jain, MK Ghosh and Preeti.

Click here to read/download the Order.