The welfare and best interest of the minor child is the paramount consideration in custody disputes, outweighing the 'tender years' doctrine or parents' financial status. Parental alienation and the need for sibling unity are critical factors in determining the appropriate custodian for a child's holistic development.

Headnote:(A) Guardians and Wards Act - Child custody - Paramount consideration in all custody matters is welfare and best interest of child - Doctrine of 'tender years' is a stereotype and not a determinative principle in contemporary society - Parental alienation significantly impacts the welfare of a child and is not a justification for a parent to be favored in custody. (Paras 36, 37, 40, 52)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Admission of additional documents - Not permissible to reopen trial proceedings at the appellate stage to admit new financial details unless the requirements of procedural laws are met - Judicial finality is essential and litigation cannot remain perpetually fluid due to failure to produce evidence in trial court. (Paras 45, 46)

(C) Custodial Dynamics - Sibling unity - Separation of siblings is inimical to their holistic development, emotional stability, and continuity - A unified upbringing preserves shared emotional bonds and facilitates healthy growth. (Paras 57, 58)

Facts of the case:
A dispute arose between parents regarding the custody of two minor children following their separation. The mother initiated multiple legal proceedings across various jurisdictions while constantly relocating, which the father alleged was a calculated effort to alienate him from the children. The trial court, after evaluating allegations of parental alienation and emotional distress, granted sole custody to the father. The mother appealed, claiming primacy as a caregiver and alleging sexual misconduct against the father, which was found unsubstantiated.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the mother's conduct indicated a pattern of deliberate parental alienation. It noted that the children were exposed to a hostile narrative and that the mother had failed to provide any substantiated support for her assertions regarding the father's conduct. The court concluded that the relocation of children was erratic and lacked justification. It further held that comparative financial capacity, while relevant, is not a decisive factor when the paramount objective is the holistic welfare of the minors.

Issues: (i) Whether the 'tender years' doctrine ought to be applied to grant custody to the mother. (ii) Whether parental alienation is a sufficient ground to deny or grant custody. (iii) Whether comparative financial capacity should override other considerations. (iv) Whether separating siblings is detrimental to their development.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that child custody determination must be based solely on the child's best interests, with 'welfare' being interpreted in its broadest, holistic sense. The court rejected the 'tender years' doctrine as archaic, concluded that parental alienation is a severe form of psychological detriment to a child, and emphasized that sibling relationships must be preserved to provide an anchor of continuity. Judicial decisions on custody focus on protecting the child from being a pawn in parental conflicts.

Result: Appeal and contempt petitions disposed of, custody of children confirmed with the father, and permission for relocation of children outside the jurisdiction rejected.

* IN THE HIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 16.12.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 23.01.2026 + CONT.CAS(C) 203/2025 SUMAN SANKAR BHUNIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Prosenjeet Banerjee, Ms.

Shreya Singhal, Ms.

Mhasilenuo Keditsu, Ms.

Kushagra and Ms. Anshika, Advocates along with Petitioner in person.

versus DEBARATI BHUNIA CHAKRABORTY .....Respondent Through: Ms. Padma Priya, Ms.

Chitrangda Rastrauara, Mr.

Abhijeet Singh, Mr. Anirudh Singh, Mr. Aishwary Mishra, Mr. Dhananjay Shekhawat, Mr.

Sakshi Aggarwal, Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Ms. Pearl Pundir and Ms. Bhumika, Advocates.

54 + MAT.APP.(F.C.) 279/2024, CM APPL. 48675/2024 (Stay), CM APPL. 48676/2024 (Addl.Doc), CM APPL. 58539/2024 (Dir.) & CM APPL. 70136/2025 (filed by appellant for clarification and modification of the order dt. 04.11.2025)

DEBARATI BHUNIA CHAKRABORTY .....Appellant Through: Ms. Padma Priya, Ms.

Chitrangda Rastrauara, Mr.

Abhijeet Singh, Mr. Anirudh Singh, Mr. Aishwary Mishra, Mr. Dhananjay Shekhawat, Mr.

Sakshi Aggarwal, Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Ms. Pearl Pundir and Ms. Bhumika, Advocates.

versus SUMAN SANKAR BHUNIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Prosenjeet Banerjee, Ms.

Shreya Singhal, Ms.

Mhasilenuo Keditsu, Ms.

Kushagra and Ms. Anshika, Advocates with Respondent in person. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present appeal, being MAT.APP.(F.C.) 279/2024, 1Matrimonial Appeal, filed by the Appellant-Wife-Mother, assails the Judgment dated 01.07.2024, 2Impugned Judgement passed by the learned Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, 3Family Court, whereby the learned Family Court, in Guardian Petition No. 22/2021 instituted by the Husband-Father under Section 7 read with Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, 4G&W Act directed that the custody of the two minor children, namely, SSB, aged about 12 years, and DW, aged about 6 years, be handed over to the Respondent-Husband-Father.

2. The Impugned Judgment further lays down detailed directions regulating the manner in which the Respondent-Father is to exercise custody of the minor children. These directions include modalities relating to visitation, communication, and the sharing of relevant information and particulars concerning the children vis-à-vis the Appellant-Mother. Additional directions have also been issued regarding the mode and frequency of interaction with the children, as well as the apportionment of interim custody during school vacations. 3. Insofar as the contempt proceeding is concerned, CONT.CAS(C) 203/2025, 5Contempt Petition has been filed by the Husband-Father against the Wife-Mother alleging violation of the Interim Order dated 23.08.2024, read with the subsequent Interim Order dated 25.10.2024, passed by this Court in the Matrimonial Appeal. The alleged non- compliance pertains to the Husband-Father‟s rights of access to and continued contact with the minor children, as well as directions relating to the updation of records concerning the paternity of the children.

4. With the consent of the parties, the Matrimonial Appeal as well as the Contempt Petition were taken up for final hearing and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. For the sake of uniformity and consistency, and in order to avoid any ambiguity, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same rank and position as assigned to them in the Matrimonial Appeal.

BRIEF FACTS:

5. The brief conspectus of the facts, as emerging from the record, is as follows:

a) The Appellant-mother and the Respondent-father were married on 26.09.2011. From the said wedlock, two children were born, namely, a son on 29.04.2013 and a daughter on 24.01.2019. After the marriage, the parties resided together at Habra, District North 24 Parganas, West Bengal, along with the parents of the Respondent-father. During this period, the son was enrolled in school at Habra, West Bengal, and the family lived together until September 2018.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 1153

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHISUMAN SANKAR BHUNIA – AppellantVersusDEBARATI BHUNIA CHAKRABORTY – RespondentCONT.CAS(C)-203/2025

Cases Referred (8)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUMAN SANKAR BHUNIA – Appellant
Versus
DEBARATI BHUNIA CHAKRABORTY – Respondent
CONT.CAS(C)-203/2025