“Child’s Welfare Paramount Consideration In Custody Matters”: Delhi HC

Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a father’s appeal against a family court order that denied him permanent custody of his 7-year-old son, reaffirming that in custody battles, the welfare of the child outweighs parental rights or financial capacity.

A division bench of Justice Nil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that the mother would continue as the primary caregiver, while the father retained limited visitation rights as granted earlier by the family court.

Background Of The Case

The appeal arose from a May 19, 2025, order of the Family Court, which had rejected the father’s guardianship petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The family court permitted him only two hours of visitation on the first and third Saturday of each month, to be exercised within the Children’s Room on court premises.

The parents married in November 2016, and their son was born in April 2018 with clubfoot, a condition that was successfully treated within a few years. However, marital discord led to the mother leaving the matrimonial home in October 2021, taking the child with her.

Rival Claims

The father argued that his superior financial position and the involvement of his parents in the child’s early care made him better suited for custody. He also alleged that the mother failed to prioritize the child’s welfare.

In contrast, the mother accused the father of refusing financial support, including for the child’s surgery for a squint eye condition in 2021. She further alleged dowry-related harassment and claimed she was forced out of the matrimonial home, after which she assumed complete responsibility for the child’s upbringing and education.

Court’s Findings

The family court had directly interacted with the child, finding him well-adjusted, emotionally secure, and comfortable in his mother’s care. It was observed that she diligently attended to his medical and educational needs, even financing surgeries independently. With no evidence of neglect, the court rejected the father’s claim for custody.

Upholding this decision, the High Court stressed that financial superiority cannot substitute emotional stability and continuity of care. It also highlighted that while a child’s preference is not decisive, it is a relevant factor when it reflects a sense of security.

Quoting the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal (1973), the bench observed that children are not “chattels or playthings in the hands of parents” and that courts, acting as parens patriae, must focus solely on the child’s welfare.

Final Orders

Rejecting the father’s complaint that visitation rights were too limited, the High Court said gradual and cautious access was appropriate to avoid disrupting the child’s stability. It clarified that visitation terms can be reviewed in the future if circumstances change or the child is open to expanded interaction.

Finding no legal infirmity in the family court’s order, the bench dismissed the appeal and pending applications.

“The assessment of the minor child’s welfare, grounded in direct interaction and careful consideration of the circumstances, does not warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction,” the Court concluded.