The Delhi High Court has upheld an order of the Family Court granting interim custody of a four-year-old boy to his father, observing that the welfare of the child must remain the "paramount consideration," irrespective of any parental allegations of adultery or discord. The bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed the appeal filed by the mother, Karuna Nath, against the Family Court's order dated 8 July 2025, which had entrusted custody to the father, Dipender Nath, until the final disposal of the guardianship petition.
Background
Karuna and Dipender married in February 2020, and their son, Master Divyansh Nath, was born the following year. But as the court noted, the relationship soured over time. The couple began living separately in October 2023, and soon after, a series of disputes and allegations unfolded.
The father accused Karuna of neglecting their son and leaving the child unattended. A missing complaint was even filed in March 2023 after she allegedly left home without informing anyone. Later, Dipender claimed that Karuna had entered into a relationship with another man, Amit Bhardwaj, who was himself married.
When the matter reached the Family Court at Tis Hazari, Karuna's absence became a key issue. Repeated non-appearances led to non-bailable warrants and public notices to secure her presence. Eventually, the Family Court, relying on police reports and witness statements-including one from Amit Bhardwaj himself-found that the mother had been living with him in Narela, Delhi.
On these facts, the court granted interim custody to the father and limited the mother's visitation to two hours every Sunday in the Children’s Room at Tis Hazari Courts.
Court's Observations
Hearing Karuna's appeal, the Division Bench observed that allegations of adultery, by themselves, cannot determine custody.
"The mere existence of an adulterous relationship, ipso facto, cannot serve as a determinative ground," Justice Shankar wrote, adding that such allegations gain relevance only when they impact the child’s welfare.
However, the Court found that Karuna's "persistent abdication of maternal obligations" and disregard for court directions demonstrated a "deeper apathy" towards her child’s well-being.
The judgment referred extensively to precedents, including Vineet Gupta v. Mukta Aggarwal (2024 SCC OnLine Del 678) and Abhishek Ajit Chavan v. Gauri Abhishek Chavan (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1140), both of which held that infidelity alone cannot disqualify a parent from custody unless it directly harms the child.
Quoting from the order, the bench observed:
"The respondent-mother may not have been a faithful or a good wife to the appellant-husband, but that in itself is not sufficient to conclude that she is unfit to have custody of the minor children."
Nevertheless, the judges emphasized that Karuna's conduct-her absences, her failure to appear in court, and her continued association with a person involved in a domestic dispute-showed instability that could jeopardize the child’s sense of security.
"The record clearly reflects her continued indifference towards the guardianship proceedings," the Court said, noting that the mother’s own parent had admitted that she had 'eloped' with another man.
Reaffirming settled law, the bench cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Sheoli Hati v. Somnath Das (2019), reiterating that
"it is not the welfare of the father, nor the welfare of the mother, that is the paramount consideration-it is the welfare of the child and the child alone."
Decision
Dismissing the appeal, the Delhi High Court held that the Family Court’s decision to grant interim custody to the father was "well-reasoned and firmly rooted in sound judicial discretion."
"Although proof of an adulterous liaison cannot by itself justify denial of custody," the Court noted, "when such conduct is viewed alongside deliberate neglect and abdication of maternal responsibilities, the cumulative effect justifies the course adopted by the Family Court."
Accordingly, the bench declined to interfere with the lower court’s order. The child’s custody will remain with the father, while the mother may continue to visit her son at the Tis Hazari Children’s Room every Sunday between 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m.
The Court concluded that the welfare and stability of the minor outweighed all other considerations and directed that "no order as to costs" be made.
Case Title: Karuna Nath v. Dipender Nath
Case Number: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 345/2025
Judgment Delivered On: 8 October 2025
