The Supreme Court recently ruled that a parent’s ability to work from home cannot, by itself, determine the outcome of a custody dispute..While recognising the shifting contours of modern work and family structures, the Court held that the place from which a parent performs their job does not, on its own, indicate their caregiving capacity or justify awarding custody.Emphasising that modern employment patterns require many parents to balance professional commitments with caregiving responsibilities, the Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan held,"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," the order stated..The ruling came in an appeal challenging a 2024 order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court had set aside an earlier interim direction granting custody of a young boy to his mother and had placed the child with his father.The High Court had also permitted both parties to pursue their claims before the jurisdictional family court for a final determination..Before hearing the appeal, the Supreme Court spoke with both parents and the children. It had also paused all cases between the parties for three months to allow them time to try and settle the dispute. When the matter was listed again on November 25, 2025, the Bench was told that no settlement had been reached, so the Court proceeded to decide the case.While examining the reasons given by the High Court, the Bench rejected the notion that remote work gives a parent an inherent edge in custody matters. It noted that married couples often work to support family needs and secure education for their children and that this reality cannot disadvantage a parent who is required to go to office."This cannot be a ground to place the custody of the child with the one who may be temporarily working from home because it is a matter of common knowledge that to meet individual as well as family aspirations married couples have to work to build a proper home and most importantly to secure better education for their ward which is getting costlier day by day.".The Court noted that in this case, both parents are working and that physical presence during office hours is not a reliable indicator of a parent’s ability to care for a child. It also emphasised that minor differences in commuting time to school cannot influence custody decisions."Distance from home to school is not a relevant consideration particularly when both sides reside in National Capital Region and the child is required to travel some distance for better education. Moreover, it hardly matters whether travel time is few minutes less or more."It also took issue with the High Court’s suggestion that the mother’s travel abroad during the Covid-19 period amounted to irresponsible behaviour. The Bench noted that taking time off, including vacations, is a normal and necessary part of maintaining mental and emotional well-being..The Court declined to change the temporary custody arrangement even though it disagreed with some of the High Court's reasoning. It stated that the child, now above five years old, had expressed a clear preference to remain with the father and appeared settled in his current school. The Court also noted the presence of grandparents in the father’s home, which provided additional support and stability.A separate request by the father to discontinue the mother’s visitation rights, granted in an earlier Supreme Court order of May 3, 2024, was rejected. The Court directed that visitation continue as previously scheduled.It acknowledged that the mother is still free to seek remedies under the applicable statutes and that the High Court had not yet reached a final custody decision..[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
