New Delhi, November 25, 2025 —
In a significant ruling on child custody, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision granting custody of a minor boy, Arjun Wadhwa, to his father, while reaffirming the mother’s visitation rights. The judgment, delivered by a Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, brings clarity to several recurring issues in custody battles — especially around working parents, distance to school, and parental conduct during the COVID-19 period.
Background of the Dispute
The case involves Poonam Wadhwa (mother/appellant) and Ajay Wadhwa (father/respondent), who have been engaged in multiple legal proceedings concerning their children — Arushi and Arjun.
- In 2022, a lower court granted custody of Arjun to the mother.
- During the High Court proceedings, Arjun crossed the age of five.
- In July 2024, the High Court set aside the lower court’s custody order and allowed the father to keep Arjun, leaving it open for both parents to pursue remedies before the Family Court.
The mother challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Attempted Reconciliation
Notably, the Supreme Court made several efforts to help the couple reach an amicable settlement.
- The Court directed mediation in 2024, which failed.
- In August 2025, the Court interacted with both parents and their children.
- The Bench observed that the children wished to spend time with each other but did not want to leave their respective parents.
- To help the family rebuild bonds, the Court temporarily stayed all ongoing litigation between them and encouraged shared outings, holidays, and weekend interactions.
Despite these efforts, the parties informed the Court that they could not resolve their differences.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Mother’s Arguments
The appellant raised several concerns about the High Court’s decision:
- Work-from-home vs. office job:
She contended that the High Court wrongly assumed that a parent working from home (the father) is better suited to raise a child. - Distance from school:
She argued that her residence was not significantly farther from Arjun’s school, Heritage School, than the father’s home. - Sibling bonding:
Since daughter Arushi lives with her mother and both children long to be together, she argued custody with her would better serve Arjun’s emotional needs. - COVID-19 travel criticism:
She challenged the High Court’s view that her travel abroad during the pandemic marked irresponsible conduct, stating she was vaccinated and it was a work requirement.
Father’s Arguments
The father supported the High Court’s judgment and reiterated that:
- Constant shifting of the child between two homes might harm his emotional stability.
- Arjun is comfortable with him and bonded with grandparents in the home.
He also sought cancellation of the mother’s visitation rights, claiming frequent home changes were unhealthy for the child.
Key Findings of the Supreme Court
The Court made several important observations that clarify legal principles in custody disputes:
1. Working status is NOT a deciding factor
The Court rejected the idea that a parent working from home is inherently better for a child than one working at an office.
“We do not subscribe to the view that if one parent is working from home and the other is not, the child’s interest is better served with the one at home.”
It acknowledged the realities of modern dual-income households.
2. Distance to school is not decisive
Small differences in travel time within the NCR region should not determine custody.
3. COVID-era travel should not be held against the mother
The Court found that travelling — even during the pandemic — could be a work requirement and does not amount to irresponsible parenting.
4. Child’s preference and emotional comfort matter
The Court emphasised that:
- Arjun, now over five years old, expressed a clear desire not to be separated from his father.
- He enjoys the company of family members in the father’s home.
- His schooling remains stable under the current arrangement.
These factors collectively weighed heavily in favour of maintaining status quo.
5. Visitation rights preserved
The Court rejected the father’s request to cancel visitation rights.
The mother will continue to have weekend visitation as previously ordered.
Outcome of the Case
- The appeal was dismissed.
- Custody of the minor son remains with the father.
- The mother retains her existing visitation rights.
- The mother remains free to pursue custody before the appropriate Family Court.
- Each party bears their own costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
This ruling has broader implications for custody cases:
Reinforces that best interests of the child override rigid guidelines.