Supreme Court of India
NEW DELHI: Noting that both partners in a marriage must work to meet individual as well as family needs and aspirations, which include securing good education for their wards, SC has said a child custody dispute between working parents cannot be decided in favour of one of them on the criterion that they work from home. A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan remarked that it could not be said that the interests of the child would be better served by the parent who worked from home, than the other who went to office daily.“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… We, therefore, do not subscribe to the view that if one parent is working from home and the other is 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,” the bench said.SC was hearing a custody dispute over a five-year-old boy in NCR. The couple has two children — a boy and a girl, with the former living with the father and the girl with the mother. SC interacted with the minor who wanted the company of his sister but was not willing to leave his father.“What is important is that from our interactions we noticed he was not willing to part company of his father. We also took notice of the fact that his father has a few elder members at home, including grandfather, who are giving company to the child. In such circumstances, having regard to thefact that the male child is now above five years old and hecontinues to be in the same school where he was studying earlier, and he has no issues with his own father and is not willing to part company of his father, an interference with the order passed by HC is not required, particularly in view of the fact that the appellant (mother) has visitation rights as directed earlier by this court ,” the court said.HC, while granting custody of the child to the father, had mentioned he was working from home. SC’s clarification came with this in mind.
