In this sensitive custody battle concerning two minor children, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court and Family Court judgments that had granted sole custody to the respondent-father and rejected the appellant-mother’s relocation plea. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred by branding the mother’s career-driven relocation as a “nomadic lifestyle” and ignoring her superior financial stability. Critically, the Court observed that granting custody to the father was wholly unwarranted given that a chargesheet had been filed against him under the POCSO Act following the son’s spontaneous disclosure at NIMHANS. Consequently, the Supreme Court permitted the mother to relocate with the children to the United Kingdom, where she is employed as a lecturer, while expunging premature observations made by the High Court regarding the criminal proceedings.
- Background and Custody Timeline:
- The appellant-mother and respondent-father married in September 2011, with their son born in 2013.
- The mother left the matrimonial home in 2018 during her second pregnancy due to alleged physical assault, retaining custody of the son from September 2018 onwards.
- The daughter was born in January 2019, after the separation, and has remained in the exclusive care and protection of the appellant-mother since birth.
- Multiple litigations across West Bengal were consolidated and transferred to the Family Court in New Delhi pursuant to Supreme Court orders.
- Lower Courts’ Rulings:
- The Family Court and the Delhi High Court granted sole custody of both minor children to the respondent-father, characterizing the mother’s frequent job changes between 2021 and 2023 as a “nomadic lifestyle”.
- The High Court also dismissed the mother’s application to relocate with the children to the United Kingdom, where she secured a well-paid lectureship at the University of Hull earning approximately Rs. 3 Lakhs per month.
- Supreme Court’s Observations and Rationale:
- Financial Standing and Vindictiveness: The Supreme Court noted that the mother achieved her financial status through personal hard work, whereas the father earned a meager salary of Rs. 17,000 per month and channeled his energy into harassing her through over 100 RTI applications rather than improving his career.
- POCSO Proceedings and Child Safety: The court strongly criticized the High Court for prematurely questioning the veracity of the POCSO FIR. It ruled that the son’s spontaneous disclosure at NIMHANS and the subsequent police chargesheet made it entirely unsafe and unjustified to grant custody to the father.
- Wishes of the Children and Alienation: Court-mandated counsellor reports and interactions confirmed the son’s extreme aversion and fear toward the father, pointing to severe parental alienation and the necessity of keeping the children under the primary care of their mother.
- Cultural Concerns Dismissed: The Court rejected the argument that relocating to the UK would alienate the children from their Bengali cultural ethos, noting that the mother is fully capable of nurturing their roots.
- Final Directions:
- The Supreme Court made absolute the stay on the impugned judgments, allowing the appellant-mother to take the children to the United Kingdom and enroll them in school.
- The mother was directed to submit an undertaking to produce the children before the court if required, and details of their schooling must be placed on record within six weeks.
- The pending quashing petition before the Calcutta High Court must proceed independently without being influenced by any observations made in these proceedings.
2026 INSC 1043
Debarati Bhunia Chakraborty v. Suman Sankar Bhunia (D.O.J. 23.09.2026)
Loading Viewer...
