The Supreme Court has ruled that a parent working from home cannot be presumed to be a better caregiver than a parent working from an office when deciding child custody. The Court stressed that both parents who are employed face comparable challenges in balancing work and childcare, and employment arrangements should not become the basis for custody presumptions.
A Division Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed an appeal filed by the mother against a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment dated July 1, 2024, which had awarded custody of the couple’s minor son to the father. The appeal stemmed from Criminal Revision No. 2069/2022, wherein the High Court had overturned trial court orders that granted custody to the mother, leaving room to pursue custody claims before the Family Court.
The mother, represented by Advocate Preeti Singh, challenged observations that the father, employed with Oracle, worked from home while she, working as Associate Manager at Virtusa Gurugram, had long in-office hours. She argued that the High Court incorrectly assumed that remote work indicates superior caregiving ability. She also contested reliance on travel distance to the child’s school and highlighted the counsellor’s report noting the child’s desire to stay with his sister, underscoring the importance of keeping siblings together.
The appellant further objected to criticism regarding her work-related international travel during the COVID-19 period, arguing that she was vaccinated and should not be viewed as irresponsible.
Representing the father, Advocate Tina Garg supported the High Court ruling and sought cancellation of the mother’s visitation rights, saying shifting between households affected the child’s emotional well-being.
The Supreme Court referred to its earlier order dated August 21, 2025, where it had stayed proceedings for three months to allow reconciliation after interacting with both children. However, reconciliation failed, and the mother later proposed mutual-consent divorce, which the father declined.
In its judgment, the bench clarified:
“A working parent cannot always be physically present with their children. This cannot justify preferring the parent working from home.” The Court also noted modern economic demands requiring both parents to work to support aspirations and rising education costs.
On other disputed factors, the Court held that slight differences in school travel time within the NCR are immaterial, and that the mother’s COVID-era travel should not carry adverse weight.
Despite acknowledging that some High Court findings should not have influenced the custody decision, the Supreme Court refused to alter the arrangement, citing the child’s willingness to stay with his father, his stable schooling environment, and support from extended family.
The Court upheld continued visitation for the mother from Saturday noon to Sunday 6 PM and rejected the father’s request to end visitation. It also emphasized that custody proceedings remain open before the appropriate forum.
Case Title: PW vs. AW & Ors., SLP (Crl.) No. 12458/2024
