1. Custody dispute between parents over two minor children under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. (Para 1 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 1155
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anil Kshetarpal, Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ
DEBARATI BHUNIA CHAKRABORTY – Appellant
Versus
SUMAN SANKAR BHUNIA – Respondent
MATFC - 279/2024
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Padma Priya, Chitrangda Rastrauara, Abhijeet Singh, Anirudh Singh, Aishwary Mishra, Dhananjay Shekhawat, Sakshi Aggarwal, Yuvraj Singh, Pearl Pundir, Bhumika
For the Respondents: Prosenjeet Banerjee, Shreya Singhal, Mhasilenuo Keditsu, Kushagra, Anshika
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Padma Priya, Chitrangda Rastrauara, Abhijeet Singh, Anirudh Singh, Aishwary Mishra, Dhananjay Shekhawat, Sakshi Aggarwal, Yuvraj Singh, Pearl Pundir, Bhumika
For the Respondents: Prosenjeet Banerjee, Shreya Singhal, Mhasilenuo Keditsu, Kushagra, Anshika
The welfare of the child is paramount, overriding the outdated Tender Years Doctrine and financial capacity. Deliberate parental alienation disentitles a parent from claiming primary caregiver status and subordinates a child's expressed preference to the court's holistic best-interest assessment.
Headnote:(A) Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Sections 7 and 25 - Welfare and best interest of the child as the paramount consideration in custody disputes, outweighing competing parental rights. (Paras 40, 41)
(B) Tender Years Doctrine - Application of the doctrine based on stereotypical premises of parental roles is no longer apposite in contemporary society; adjudication must be anchored in the "best interests of the children" rather than presumptive doctrines. (Paras 36-38)
(C) Parental Alienation - A parent who deliberately excludes the other from the children's lives and engages in systematic alienation cannot subsequently assert the status of "primary caregiver" to secure custody. (Para 52)
(D) Financial Capacity - While relevant, superior financial resources are not a decisive factor; emotional security, psychological stability, and the prevention of parental alienation are of greater significance. (Paras 43, 61) (E) Child's Preference - The expressed wishes of a child, particularly when shaped by prolonged exposure to one-sided perceptions or alienation, cannot act as a veto over the judicial determination of the child's best interests. (Paras 55, 56)
Facts of the case:
A dispute between estranged parents over the custody of two minor children. The mother had relocated the children across multiple jurisdictions and subsequently moved to a foreign country for professional reasons, leaving the children with grandparents. The trial court granted custody to the father, noting a pattern of parental alienation. The mother challenged this, citing her role as the primary caregiver and her higher financial capacity.
Findings of Court:
The court concurred that the mother's conduct reflected sustained parental alienation. The children's hostility toward the father was viewed as conditioned rather than spontaneous. The court found that the children's welfare would be better served by a unified upbringing with the father to restore balanced parental influence.
Issues: The applicability of the Tender Years Doctrine, the impact of parental alienation on the assessment of primary caregiving and child preference, and the relevance of financial superiority in custody determinations.
Ratio Decidendi: The welfare of the child is the overriding consideration. The Tender Years Doctrine is outdated. The use of alienation to create a "primary caregiver" status is legally impermissible. Siblings should not be separated. Meaningful physical presence of a parent is superior to virtual access, justifying the rejection of relocation to a foreign jurisdiction.
Result: Matrimonial Appeal and Contempt Petition disposed of; custody of minor children vests with the respondent-father.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- family law
- practice and procedure
- crime and sentencing
Table of Contents
2. Mother argued primary caregiver role and best interests; father argued parental alienation and abuse of process. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 )
3. Tender Years Doctrine no longer apposite; welfare of child is paramount consideration, transcending parental rights. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 )
4. In custody matters, welfare and best interest of child is paramount and outweighs competing parental rights. (Para 40 , 43 )
5. Custody of both minor children vests with father; mother to contribute financially; relocation application rejected. (Para 77 )
6. What is the paramount consideration in child custody disputes?
The welfare and best interest of the child is the paramount consideration, overriding all other factors including parental rights. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 )
7. Is the Tender Years Doctrine a determinative principle in modern custody cases?
No, the Tender Years Doctrine is no longer apposite in modern society and must yield to the overarching welfare principle. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 )
8. How should a child's preference be weighed in custody decisions?
A child's preference is relevant but not a veto; it must be scrutinized for influence or alienation, especially in high-conflict cases. (Para 55 , 56 )
9. What is parental alienation and how does it affect custody?
Parental alienation is deliberately turning a child against the other parent; it is harmful to the child and may disentitle the alienating parent from custody. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 62 )
$~
* 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.
b)
