The question of whether a parent’s moral conduct, particularly adultery, can affect custody rights has long been debated in family jurisprudence. Indian courts have repeatedly affirmed that the paramount consideration in custody disputes is the welfare of the child, not the moral shortcomings or personal failings of the parents. However, the recent judgment of the Delhi High Court in Karuna Nath v. Dipender Nath (2025) brings to light a nuanced situation—what happens when allegations of adultery are coupled with demonstrable parental neglect?
The Court was called upon to decide whether a mother’s adulterous relationship, combined with her prolonged disregard for her maternal responsibilities, justified transferring the interim custody of her child to the father.
The decision underscores that adultery alone cannot be the ground to deny custody, but when it accompanies abandonment and neglect, the cumulative effect may tilt the scales against the erring parent.
Factual Background
Karuna Nath (the appellant–mother) and Dipender Nath (the respondent–father) were married in February 2020. From their union, a son, Master Divyansh Nath, was born in January 2021. Marital discord soon followed, and the couple began living separately in October 2023.
The father alleged that the mother frequently left the matrimonial home without notice, leaving the child unattended. On one such occasion, a missing person complaint was lodged by the father and the mother’s family. Matters worsened when the father discovered that the mother had allegedly entered into a relationship with a man named Amit Bhardwaj, a married individual with two children.
Claiming that the mother had neglected her parental duties and was living in circumstances detrimental to the child’s welfare, the father filed a Guardianship Petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (GW Act), seeking permanent custody. Alongside, he sought interim custody under Section 12 of the Act.
Proceedings Before the Family Court
The Family Court proceedings revealed troubling details:
- The mother frequently failed to appear in court despite repeated summons and non-bailable warrants.
- Her mother testified that Karuna had “eloped” with Amit Bhardwaj, whose wife had separately lodged a missing persons complaint against him.
- A police report confirmed that Amit Bhardwaj admitted to living in a relationship with Karuna and expressed fear for his life from his legal wife and her family.
In July 2025, after considering the evidence, the Family Court concluded that the mother was living in an adulterous relationship and had shown consistent indifference toward her child. The court therefore granted interim custody to the father, while limiting the mother’s visitation rights to two hours every Sunday at the Tis Hazari Courts’ Children’s Room.
Appeal Before Delhi High Court
Aggrieved by the order, the mother appealed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, contending that:
- The finding of adultery was prima facie unsustainable, being based only on allegations and police reports.
- As the biological mother, she was the natural guardian of the child, and transferring custody to the father was contrary to the child’s welfare.
The key question before the Division Bench—comprising Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar—was whether the Family Court was justified in granting interim custody to the father based on the combined grounds of adultery and neglect.
Issues
- Can an allegation or proof of adultery alone disqualify a parent from custody?
- Does parental neglect, when coupled with immoral conduct, amount to unfitness for custody?
- What role does the child’s welfare play in balancing moral, ethical, and physical considerations?
Court’s Analysis
1. Adultery Alone Does Not Disqualify Custody
The Court reaffirmed a settled principle of law: mere proof of adultery cannot, by itself, be a determinative ground to deny custody. It cited with approval the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Vineet Gupta v. Mukta Aggarwal (2024 SCC OnLine Del 678), where the Court held:
“Even if an extra-marital affair is proved, it does not automatically render a mother unfit for custody unless there is clear evidence that her conduct has affected the welfare of the children.”
The Bench noted that moral transgressions in marital life do not necessarily reflect on a parent’s capacity to nurture a child. The real question, it said, is whether such conduct impairs the child’s welfare—emotionally, physically, or morally.
This approach was also supported by the Bombay High Court in Abhishek Ajit Chavan v. Gauri Abhishek Chavan (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1140), which emphasised that even proven adultery cannot deprive a mother of custody unless it demonstrably affects the child’s well-being.
Thus, adultery, in isolation, remains insufficient to deprive parental rights.
2. Parental Neglect as a Critical Factor
Delhi High Court observed that in this case, the mother’s repeated absences from court, failure to comply with orders, and abandonment of the child for extended periods established a pattern of neglect. This was not a mere procedural lapse but a reflection of her apathy toward the child’s welfare.
The SHO’s report confirmed that the child was left unattended on multiple occasions and that the mother had been cohabiting with a man involved in family disputes and threats to personal safety. Such conduct, the Court held, “militates against the welfare of the child, for it demonstrates conscious disregard of the stability, security, and environment indispensable for the child’s development.”
3. Paramountcy of the Child’s Welfare
The Bench anchored its reasoning in the well-established doctrine of the child’s welfare as enshrined under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and reiterated by the Supreme Court in multiple precedents.
Citing Sheoli Hati v. Somnath Das (2019) 7 SCC 490, the Court recalled that in all custody matters, the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration, surpassing the statutory rights of the parents. The welfare test includes not only the physical comfort and security of the child but also moral and ethical welfare.
The judgment also relied on Ashish Ranjan v. Anupma Tandon (2010) 14 SCC 274, where the Supreme Court warned that a child must never be treated as property or a commodity, and custody decisions must be taken with “care, caution, affection, and human touch.”
4. The Role of the Court as Parens Patriae
The Court reiterated that in custody disputes, it functions as a guardian of the minor’s welfare (parens patriae), empowered to make discretionary decisions for the child’s best interest. The mother’s conduct—living with a married man involved in criminal complaints and failing to attend proceedings—raised serious questions about the environment in which the child would grow.
The Bench underscored that while the law does not punish moral lapses, it cannot ignore the practical realities that may endanger a child’s well-being. Therefore, custody must rest with the parent capable of ensuring stability, education, and moral grounding.
5. Cumulative Effect: Adultery + Neglect
In its concluding analysis, the Court drew a fine distinction between adultery as a moral lapse and neglect as a parental failure. It held that although adultery alone would not disentitle the mother, its combination with sustained neglect, abandonment, and irresponsibility justified the Family Court’s decision.
Quoting the concluding paragraph of the judgment:
“Albeit the mere allegation or even proof of an adulterous liaison cannot singularly constitute the determinative ground for denial of custody, yet when such conduct is viewed in conjunction with deliberate neglect and conscious abdication of maternal obligations, the cumulative effect justifies the course adopted by the Family Court.”
Thus, the Delhi High Court dismissed the mother’s appeal, upholding the interim custody of the minor with the father while preserving the mother’s right to limited visitation.
Comparative and Precedential Perspective
Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal (1973) 1 SCC 840: The Supreme Court held that the primary object of the Guardians and Wards Act is the welfare of the child, not the enforcement of parental rights.
Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu (2008) 9 SCC 413: Custody should not be granted to a parent whose conduct may adversely affect the moral or emotional development of the child.
Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2009) 1 SCC 42: The welfare of the child must be considered in its widest sense, including physical, moral, emotional, and ethical aspects.
V. Ravi Chandran v. Union of India (2010) 1 SCC 174: Legal rights of parents are subordinate to the child’s best interests.
Smriti Madan Kansagra v. Perry Kansagra (2021) 12 SCC 289: Welfare must encompass holistic growth and moral stability.
Together, these precedents form a consistent judicial framework within which the Karuna Nath decision operates.
Conclusion
Delhi High Court’s decision in Karuna Nath v. Dipender Nath offers a significant precedent in Indian custody jurisprudence. It reinforces three cardinal principles:
- Adultery alone does not disqualify a parent from custody.
- Neglect and abandonment, when coupled with such conduct, can justify transferring custody.
The welfare and best interests of the child remain supreme, encompassing physical, emotional, moral, and ethical dimensions.
By upholding the father’s interim custody, the Court emphasised that parental responsibility is a duty, not a privilege, and failure to discharge it—regardless of gender—can invite judicial intervention.
This judgment thus situates itself at the intersection of morality, parental conduct, and child welfare. It serves as a reminder that in family law, the ultimate question is not who erred in marriage, but who safeguards the child’s future.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams