Mother's Attempt To Cement Her Position In Academic World & Pursuing Jobs Cannot Be Branded As "Nomadic Lifestyle": Supreme Court In Child Custody Case
Noting that the mother left the matrimonial home while carrying a pregnancy of four months, the Bench said that had everything been well in the relationship, there could have been no reason for her to take the abrupt decision of leaving her five-year-old son behind.
The Supreme Court has held that a mother's continuous pursuit in employment, undertaken to secure a stable and better future for her children, cannot be characterised as a "nomadic lifestyle" disentitling her to custody. The Court found such a description "absolutely unjustified and far removed from reality", holding that the lower courts had failed to appreciate the compulsions behind the mother's career moves.
The Court further permitted the mother to relocate both children to the United Kingdom, where she is employed as a university lecturer, holding that continuing to deny relocation would only deepen the parental alienation already afflicting the children during their formative years.
The mother, an academician holding a doctorate in engineering, left the matrimonial home in 2018 while pregnant with her second child, after which she held custody of both children while moving between academic postings at IIT Jodhpur, VIT Vijayawada, and Bengaluru, before securing a lectureship at the University of Hull, UK.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “…The fact remains that, after leaving the matrimonial home, the appellant-mother has been trying to cement her position in the academic world and has pursued jobs in different institutions. This attempt of the appellant-mother has been branded as a ‘nomadic life’ by the Courts below, which, in our opinion, is absolutely unjustified and far removed from reality”.
“Suffice it to say that the appellant-mother left the matrimonial home while carrying a pregnancy of four months. If everything was going well in the matrimonial relationship, as contended by the respondent, there could have been no reason for the appellant-mother to take the abrupt decision of leaving her five-year-old son behind and moving out of the matrimonial home. It is quite obvious that the appellant-mother was not desirous of washing dirty linen in public and exposing the family acrimony in public domain, hence, she quietly left the matrimonial home without raising much fuss about the events that triggered such drastic decision…”, the Bench categorically said.
Senior Advocate Zoheb Hossain appeared for the appellant and Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appeared for the respondent.
The Bench was hearing appeals filed by the mother against a Delhi High Court judgment affirming a Family Court order that had denied her permission to relocate the children abroad and granted sole custody to the father, partly on the ground that her frequent job changes reflected instability.
It was contended these moves were necessitated by circumstances, including over a hundred RTI applications filed against her by the father during her tenure at IIT Jodhpur, which she said forced her exit from that position.
The Family Court had rejected her relocation plea in 2023, citing the contractual nature of her UK employment and possible alienation of the father, a view the Delhi High Court upheld in January 2026 while also awarding sole custody to the father.
The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the mother's sustained efforts to secure better-paying, stable employment compatible with her qualifications, despite facing multi-pronged litigation, reflected resolve rather than instability, and weighed in her favour. The Court noted that the father, drawing a salary of only Rs. 17,000 per month, had instead channelled his energies into litigation rather than improving his own financial standing, and that his parents' pension could not be treated as substituting for his obligations. The Court also rejected the contention that relocation would cause the children to lose their Bengali cultural ethos, holding there was no presumption that relocation abroad results in loss of cultural values.
Accordingly, the Court permitted the mother to take the children to the UK and enrol them in school there, subject to an undertaking that she would produce them before any court as directed and file details of their schooling within six weeks.
Cause Title: D v. S (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1043)
Appearances:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Zoheb Hossain.
Respondent: Senior Advocate Shyam Divan.