Adultery plus neglect towards child can cost mother custody: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently held that an adulterous relationship coupled with deliberate neglect and conscious abdication of maternal obligation towards one's child can lead to denial of a child’s interim custody to a mother. 

A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar passed the order. 

“We are of the considered opinion that, albeit the mere allegation or even proof of an adulterous liaison, cannot singularly constitute the determinative ground for grant or denial of custody of the child, yet when such conduct is viewed in conjunction with the contemporaneous acts of deliberate neglect and the conscious abdication of maternal obligations, the cumulative effect thereof justifies the course adopted by the learned family court,” the Court observed. 

Therefore, the Court upheld a family court order granting interim custody of a four-year-old boy to his father on the ground of the mother’s continued neglect, disappearance and disregard for court proceedings. 

The couple married in February 2020 and separated in October 2023 following marital discord. The father alleged that his wife had repeatedly left the matrimonial home without informing anyone and, at times, left the child unattended. He also accused her of being in a relationship with another married man.

During the proceedings before the family court, the mother failed to appear repeatedly despite several summons and non-bailable warrants. The woman's mother informed the court that she had eloped with a man who had two children from his first marriage.

In light of these developments, the family court granted interim custody of the child to the father, allowing the mother limited visitation. 

The woman challenged the order before the High Court. 

After considering the case, the Court observed that while allegations of adultery alone cannot determine custody, the mother’s conduct and abandonment of parental responsibilities justified the decision.

The record clearly reflected her continued indifference towards the guardianship proceedings coupled with repeated disregard for the authority of the Court, the Bench said. 

“Such conduct is not a mere procedural lapse but is indicative of a deeper apathy towards the welfare of the minor child. This position stands fortified by the Report of the SHO, which records that for nearly two years the Appellant displayed habitual neglect and irresponsible abandonment, thereby imperiling the well-being and best interests of the child- considerations which are paramount in custody adjudication,” the High Court said.

Hence, it rejected the mother’s plea. 

Advocate Pramod Kumar appeared for the appellant-mother. 

[Read Judgment]