Supreme Court Questions Father’s Claim of ‘Status Quo’ in Custody of 6-Month-Old Twins

The bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria was hearing a transfer petition arising out of an acrimonious matrimonial dispute.

The Court directed both parties to appear in chambers on the next date along with the children.

AOR Vivya Nagpal, along with Advocates Ekansh Bansal, Priyanshu Kumar, Osheen Jain, Syed Sarfaraz Karim, and Tushar Alok appeared for the respondent wife. 

Expressing strong disapproval of the husband’s alleged actions, Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “Cruelty of the highest order. Could the father take care of just born twins? She did not walk away, she was turned out of the house. The husband has acted extremely cruelly. Children aged six months deprived of the custody of the mother, sorry! Absolutely unacceptable. Big no.”

The respondent-wife was present in Court along with her counsel. It was submitted that despite two cars being available in the matrimonial home, she was not permitted to use them and had to walk to the hospital for nearly two months for kangaroo care after the premature birth of the twins. The children, counsel pointed out, were born after considerable effort through IVF.

The wife further alleged that the husband, a businessman, was an alcoholic with anger issues and had subjected her to physical abuse. It was also claimed that she was forced out of the house and has since been “running from pillar to post” to secure custody of her own children.

During the hearing, Justice Vikram Nath asked the senior counsel appearing for the husband whether he was willing to hand over custody of the twins. The response was that the children had been in the father’s care so far and disturbing the “status quo” would be detrimental to their welfare.

The submission drew a sharp response from the Bench. Justice Mehta remarked that completely depriving a mother of custody of children aged six months was unacceptable, especially when she had approached the Court without delay.

The wife’s counsel also contended that the husband had approached the Supreme Court with the transfer petition after the High Court directed the Family Court to decide the custody matter within two months. It was further alleged that the husband was threatening the wife and that the twins were being cared for by a nanny rather than their mother.

Taking note of the submissions, Justice Nath observed that depriving such young children of their mother’s love and affection, and placing them in the care of a third person, raised serious concerns. He indicated that if the husband sought indulgence on the transfer plea, the question of handing over custody to the mother would have to be addressed.

When asked whether the husband was paying any maintenance, the wife’s counsel stated that he was not. She submitted that the wife was even willing to withdraw all pending cases and forgo maintenance, asserting that her sole concern was custody of the children. It was also alleged that repeated requests for video calls to see the twins had been denied.

In response to a remark by the husband’s counsel questioning the utility of video calls for infants, Justice Mehta retorted pointedly, “What will they do without a mother?”

The Bench also deprecated certain language used during arguments, terming it unfortunate.

At one stage, the husband’s counsel sought referral of the dispute to mediation. The matter was ultimately adjourned to enable the petitioner to file a rejoinder. Before parting, the Court noted that an FIR had also been lodged by the husband against the wife alleging theft.

The case will now be taken up on the next date in chambers, with the presence of both parties and the minor children.