The Supreme Court noted that a parent working from home does not automatically grant them custody of a child. The Court emphasized that parents may need to be away from the child to earn a livelihood, and this should not prevent them from seeking custody.
“We, therefore, do not subscribe to the view that if one parent is working from home and the other 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.”, observed a bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan while hearing the mother’s appeal challenging the grant of custody to the father.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court had granted custody to the father, reasoning that his work-from-home setup was in the child’s best interest.
While the Supreme Court chose not to overturn the High Court’s decision—considering the child’s welfare, his reluctance to be separated from his father, and the presence of his grandfather—it disagreed with the reasoning that custody should be based solely on a parent working from home.
“What is important is that from our interactions with Arjun we noticed that he was not willing to part company of his father. We also took notice of the fact that his father has few elder members at home including Arjun’s grandfather who are giving company to the child. In such circumstances, having regard to the fact that the male child is now above five years old and he continues 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 the High Court is not required…”, the court observed.
“Consequently, we do not find a good reason to disturb the operative portion (granting custody to the father) of the impugned order.”, the court held.