Work-From-Home Alone Cannot Decide Child Custody

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan in the case of Poonam Wadhwa v. Ajay Wadhwa and Ors. (2025) addressed the custody dispute of a minor son between working parents, emphasizing that employment patterns, work-from-home arrangements, and minor travel distances to school should not be primary considerations in determining child custody. 

What was the Background of Poonam Wadhwa v. Ajay Wadhwa and Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The case arose from a custody dispute between Poonam Wadhwa (mother/appellant) and Ajay Wadhwa (father/respondent) concerning their minor son Arjun Wadhwa and daughter Arushi Wadhwa. 
• Initially, the lower court granted custody of Arjun to his mother when he was below 5 years of age through orders dated 30th July 2022 and 23rd September 2022. 
• The father filed a Revision Petition (CRR No.2069/2022) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh challenging the custody order. 
• On 1st July 2024, the High Court allowed the father's petition and set aside the lower court's orders, transferring Arjun's custody to his father. 
• The High Court based its decision on several factors including that the father (employed with Oracle) was working from home while the mother (Associate Manager at Virtusa, Gurugram) had long working hours at the office. 
• The High Court also considered the distance from Heritage School, Vasant Kunj to each parent's residence, suggesting the father's location was more convenient. 
• The High Court noted that the mother had traveled abroad during the peak Covid-19 period, terming it irresponsible conduct. 
• The custody of daughter Arushi remained with the mother as she preferred to stay with her. 
• The Supreme Court had attempted mediation under the Supreme Court Mediation Centre on 25th November 2024, which proved unsuccessful. 
• On 21st August 2025, the Supreme Court interacted with both children and observed that Arjun and Arushi desperately wanted each other's company but did not want to separate from their respective parents. 
• The Court had stayed all proceedings between the parties for three months to allow reconciliation attempts, which ultimately failed. 
• The mother approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's order, while the father filed an application seeking discharge of visitation rights that had been granted to the mother.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Supreme Court rejected the High Court's reasoning that working from home makes a parent better suited for custody, observing that both spouses often need to work to meet family aspirations and provide quality education for their children. 
• The Court held that employment patterns (work from home versus office work) and distance from home to school are not relevant considerations, particularly when both parents reside in the National Capital Region. 
• Despite finding errors in the High Court's reasoning, the Supreme Court declined to interfere based on other considerations: Arjun was a male child now aged above 5 years who was not willing to part company with his father during interaction. 
• The Court noted that the father had elder family members at home, including Arjun's grandfather, providing additional support, and that Arjun's education at Heritage School continued undisturbed. 
• The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court had not closed the custody issue permanently but left it open for the mother to seek custody through Family Court proceedings under relevant statutes. 
• The Court upheld the mother's visitation rights (12 noon Saturday to 6:00 PM Sunday) granted via earlier order dated 3rd May 2024 and rejected the father's application seeking discharge of these rights. 
• The appeal was dismissed while maintaining the mother's visitation rights, with the Court noting the child's welfare remained the paramount consideration. 

What is Child Custody? 

Definition and Concept: 

• The term 'custody' has not been defined in the Indian legal system. 
• The law governing custody of children is closely linked with guardianship. 
  • Guardianship refers to a bundle of rights and powers that an adult has concerning the person and property of a minor. 
  • Under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, 'guardian' is defined as "a person having the care of the person of a minor or his property or of both his person and property" 
• Custody is a narrower concept relating to the upbringing and day-to-day care and control of the minor. 

Major Laws Governing Child Custody: 

Hindu Law: 

• Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Section 26):  
  • Empowers courts to pass interim orders concerning custody, maintenance, and education of minor children. 
  • Courts must consider the wishes of the children. 
  • Courts can revoke, suspend, or modify any interim orders passed earlier. 
• Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (HAMA):  
  • Provides law relating to minorities and guardianship among Hindus. 
  • Provides for natural as well as testamentary guardians. 

Muslim Law: 

• Islamic law was the first law to differentiate between custody and guardianship. 
• The father is the natural guardian but custody vests with the mother until:  
  • Son reaches the age of seven. 
  • Daughter reaches puberty. 
• Concept of Hizanat: Mother is the most suited to have custody of children up to a certain age, both during marriage and after its dissolution. 

Parsi Law: 

• Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 (Section 49):  
  • Empowers courts to pass interim orders for custody, maintenance, and education of minor children. 
• Guardianship for Parsi children is governed by the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. 

Christian Law: 

• Divorce Act, 1869 (Section 41):  
  • Empowers courts to pass interim orders for custody, maintenance, and education of minor children. 
• Guardianship for Christian children is governed by the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. 

Secular Laws: 

• Special Marriage Act, 1954 (Section 38):  
  • Provides for custody of children. 
  • Empowers district courts to pass interim orders concerning custody, maintenance, and education of minor children, considering their wishes. 
  • Courts can make, vary, revoke, or suspend earlier passed orders. 
• Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (GWA):  
  • A secular law applicable to all citizens regardless of religion. 
  • Before this Act, there was no all-India Act dealing with guardianship of minors. 
  • Comprehensive law laying down all rights and obligations of guardians. 
  • Provides procedure for removal and replacement of guardians. 
  • Provides remedies for misconduct by guardians.

Paramount Consideration: Welfare of Child 

• In all statutes (personal or secular), the principle of "welfare of the child" has been recognized except in Islamic law. 
• The judiciary considers welfare and wishes of child while granting custody. 
• There is no straitjacket formula for what constitutes welfare of child. 
• It depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. 
• Courts must weigh all factors including:  
  • Financial condition 
  • Moral behaviour 
  • Mental stability 
  • Family support 
  • Surroundings 
  • Child's wish