Parent Working From Home Not Automatically Better for Child Custody: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that a parent merely working from home cannot be presumed to offer better care to a young child, holding that employment format cannot determine custody.

The bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan said that in modern families where both parents are working professionals, “working from home” is neither a superior nor decisive factor, and custodial decisions must turn solely on the child’s welfare.

The observations were made in a dispute between a man and a woman over the custody of their minor son. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had handed custody to the father after noting that he worked from home, while the mother had long office hours. Challenging this, the mother approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had relied on an incorrect assumption that working from home equates to better parenting.

Court agreed with the mother on principle, making it clear that employment arrangements cannot form the backbone of a custody order.

“Both parents are working and therefore cannot always be physically with their children. This cannot be a ground to place custody with the one who may be temporarily working from home,” the bench observed.

It added that married couples today often work to secure a stable home and education for their children, and courts must reflect this social reality.

Court also rejected two other considerations that had weighed with the High Court which were the distance between the child’s school and each parent’s home, and the allegation that the mother had behaved irresponsibly by travelling abroad during the Covid-19 period.

On school distance, court noted that both parents live in the National Capital Region, where children routinely commute some distance for quality education, making a few extra minutes of travel immaterial in custody determinations. On the mother’s Covid-era travel, court held that even vacations cannot be treated as misconduct, particularly when she was vaccinated and the father disputed the purpose of travel.

Despite disagreeing with these aspects of the High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court ultimately chose not to disturb the current arrangement under which the child has been living with his father.

The bench said its conclusion rested not on parental employment formats but on present-day welfare indicators that the boy is now above five; his schooling continues smoothly where he is; he has elder family members at home, including his grandfather; and during the court’s own interaction, he did not express willingness to leave his father’s company.

Court kept the mother’s visitation rights intact, rejecting the father’s plea to discontinue weekend access on the ground that shifting between homes hampers psychological stability. The bench said that the mother’s right to maintain a meaningful bond with her son must be protected unless there is compelling evidence of harm.

Importantly, the Court underlined that the custody question is not finally closed. The mother is free to approach the competent family court under statutory custody proceedings, where all factors, including the evolving needs and preferences of both siblings, can be reassessed over time.

Case Title: Poonam Wadhwa Vs Ajay Wadhwa & Ors

Judgment Date: November 25, 2025

Bench: Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan