One parent working from home and another travelling to the workplace cannot, by itself, become a decisive factor in awarding the custody of a child, the Supreme Court has held, in a significant ruling reflecting contemporary family realities.
In an order released earlier this week, the top court noted that in today’s socio-economic environment, both parents often work to secure a stable future for their children, and physical presence at home during work hours does not automatically translate into better care or welfare.
When both parents work to provide a certain lifestyle and resources to their children, the court noted, it is expected that they cannot always be physically with their children, a bench of justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan observed.
“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,” the bench said.
The order added: “We, therefore, do not subscribe to the view that if one parent is working from home and the other not (ie, 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.”
The ruling comes at a time when hybrid and remote work arrangements have become increasingly common and custody disputes frequently cite work-from-home as an advantage. The apex court’s decision underscores that child welfare cannot be reduced to simplistic criteria, and each case must turn on nuanced considerations such as emotional bonding, comfort levels, stability and the wishes of the child, where appropriate.
The bench made the remarks while dismissing a plea filed by a woman, who had challenged a 2024 order of the Punjab and Haryana high court, which transferred custody of her minor son to his father. The Supreme Court held that no interference was warranted since the child, now above five years of age, expressed unwillingness to part from his father and had settled well in his current educational environment.
Emphasising that custody decisions must prioritise the child’s emotional well-being rather than the convenience or claims of either parent, the court also noted that the father’s home environment included the presence of grandparents, offering additional care and family support.
Even as the court decided not to disturb the custody of the child, it disapproved of the high court’s reliance on factors such as father’s physical presence at home during work hours and the mother’s travel abroad during the Covid-19 period for granting father the custody.
The bench pointed out that even vacation travel cannot be construed as irresponsible if undertaken while vaccinated and in accordance with professional needs. “Even vacations are important and necessary for a person to maintain a proper frame of mind,” it remarked.
Arguments were also advanced that since the child’s sister lives with the mother and the children wished to spend time together, custody should be revisited. The bench acknowledged the emotional value of siblings’ companionship but held that the welfare calculus required broader considerations, noting that the mother continues to enjoy visitation rights accorded under the earlier Supreme Court order.
About the Author
