Mere Proof Of Adulterous Relation Cannot Determine Grant Of Custody Of Child, Significant Only If Affects Welfare Of Child: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court observed that mere existence of an adulterous relationship, ipso facto, cannot serve as a determinative ground for awarding or denying interim custody to either parent, however, such circumstances assumes significance only if it demonstrably impacts the welfare of the minor child by depriving the child of maternal affection, care, or a sense of security.

An Appeal was filed by the mother against the order of the Family Court in Guardianship Petition, whereby the interim custody of the minor child was granted to the father until the disposal of the petition.

The Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan observed, “We 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.”

Advocate Pramod Kumar represented the Appellant.

Case Brief

An Appeal was filed by the mother against the order of the Family Court in Guardianship Petition, whereby the interim custody of the minor child was granted to the father until the disposal of the petition.

Before the Family Court, it was contended by the Respondent-father that the Appellant-mother used to leave matrimonial home without prior intimation and had relationship with another man, which aggravated the discord between the parties. The mother did not participate in the case before the Family Court, accordingly, the Family Court granted interim custody to the father.

Before the High Court, the Appellant-mother submitted that due to the circumstances in her matrimonial household she was compelled to reside separately and take shelter with another person.

Court’s Observation

At the outset, the High Court opined that the mere existence of an adulterous relationship, ipso facto, cannot serve as a determinative ground for awarding or denying interim custody to either parent.

The Bench said, “Such a circumstance assumes significance only if it demonstrably impacts the welfare of the minor child by depriving the child of maternal affection, care, or a sense of security.”

Resultantly, the Court emphasised that what was substantial was not the allegation of adultery but rather the Appellant-mother’s persistent abdication of her maternal obligations. It was further observed by the Court that Appellant-mother’s continued indifference towards the guardianship proceedings, coupled with repeated disregard for the authority of the Court was not a mere procedural lapse but was also indicative of a deeper apathy towards the welfare of the minor child.

The Court underscored that in determining which parent should be entrusted with the care and control of a child, the paramount consideration is always the welfare and best interest of the child, rather than the statutory rights of the parents.

“It is, therefore, evident that the exercise of power under Section 12 of the GW Act is a discretionary power vested in the Court, intended to enable the making of appropriate interim arrangements concerning the custody, guardianship, or welfare of a minor. This discretion must, however, be exercised cautiously, guided at all times by the paramount consideration of the child's welfare and best interest”, the Court observed.

The Court held that the conduct of the Appellant-mother demonstrated conscious disregard of the stability, security, and environment indispensable for the holistic development of the child.

Accordingly, the Appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: KN V. DN (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8850-DB)

Click here to read/download Judgement