The Supreme Court has permitted a mother to take her two minor children to the United Kingdom for their education and upbringing, holding that the welfare and safety of the children must remain the paramount consideration in custody matters.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was dealing with a custody dispute involving two minor children, aged about 13 and 7 years, and observed that the children were facing the consequences of prolonged parental conflict and parental alienation.
The Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, had in July 2024 declared the father to be the sole custodian of both children, while granting visitation/interim custody rights to the mother. The Delhi High Court subsequently upheld the decision and rejected the mother's request to relocate the children to the UK.
The High Court had relied, among other factors, upon the children's welfare, sibling unity and concerns regarding the mother's frequent relocation due to changes in employment. It had also held that the children should remain within the territorial jurisdiction of Indian courts.
During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the Bench interacted with the parents and children. The Court noted that the son had expressed strong reluctance to be in his father's company.
The Supreme Court subsequently permitted visitation by the father under the supervision of counsellors. Reports submitted after the visitation sessions recorded that both children demonstrated strong reluctance to interact with their father, while the daughter displayed fear and emotional distress and repeatedly sought to return home.
The Court noted that the son's extreme reluctance to be in the company of his father had emerged both during the Court's interaction and the supervised visitation periods.
The Court also disagreed with the approach of the courts below in describing the mother's frequent changes of employment and location as a “nomadic life.”
The Bench observed that after leaving the matrimonial home, the mother had been attempting to establish herself professionally and secure a respectable, well-paying job compatible with her qualifications so that she could provide for herself and her children.
The Court also took note of the significant difference in the parents' financial positions, observing that the mother had secured better financial prospects through her own efforts.
A significant factor before the Supreme Court was the POCSO case against the father.
The son had made a disclosure concerning alleged sexual abuse during examination at NIMHANS, following which an FIR was registered and a chargesheet was subsequently filed against the father. The criminal proceedings were pending before the Calcutta High Court.
The Supreme Court strongly disapproved of observations made by the Delhi High Court regarding the veracity of the POCSO allegations. It held that such observations were “out of place, uncalled for and premature”, particularly because the FIR was itself under challenge before the Calcutta High Court. The observations were therefore directed to be expunged.
The Supreme Court held that once the police had filed a chargesheet concerning allegations constituting an offence under the POCSO Act against the father, granting custody of the children to him would be unwarranted, keeping in view the paramount consideration of the children's best interests.
Referring to the principles under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Court emphasised the child's right to be heard, the principle of best interest and the principle of safety.
The Court further observed that, as long as the father is facing prosecution, he cannot be considered entitled to custody of the children, noting that handing custody to him could potentially affect the son's ability to give a free and fair deposition in the criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court concluded that refusing relocation to the UK could further aggravate the parental alienation of the children. The mother had secured a teaching position in the UK and had assured the Court that she would personally take responsibility for the children's upbringing and would produce them before the Court whenever directed.
Accordingly, the Court permitted the mother to take the children to the United Kingdom and admit them to a good school. She was directed to place details of their schooling on record within six weeks and furnish an undertaking to produce the children before the Supreme Court or any other court whenever directed.
The Court also clarified that the father's pending quashing petition before the Calcutta High Court must be decided independently and without being influenced by the observations made either by the Delhi High Court or the Supreme Court in the present order.
The appeals have been directed to be listed for hearing in January 2027.
Case: Debarati Bhunia Chakraborty v. Suman Sankar Bhunia
Citation: 2026 INSC 1043
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date: September 23, 2026.
Representation:-
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nipun Katyal, Adv. Mr. Aishwary Mishra, Adv. Mr. Dhananjai Shekhawat, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Manan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Pranjal Tripathi, Adv. Mr. J N Singh, Adv. Mr. Arjav Jain, Adv. Mr. Surya Pratap Singh Rana, Adv. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, AOR Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv. Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, AOR Ms. Srishti Mishra, Adv. Mr. Abhijeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Singh, Adv. Mr. Aishwary Mishra, Adv. Mr. Dhananjai Shekhawat, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Adv. Mr Jai Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Anushikha Rathore, Adv. Ms. Anushree, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prosenjeet Banerjee, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shreya Singhal, Adv. Ms. Arpith Jacob Varaprasad, Adv. Ms. Mhasilenuo Keditsu, Adv. Ms. Kushagra, Adv. Ms. Vijayrajeshwari, Adv. Ms. Anshika Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anshula Laroiya, Adv. Mr. Gautam Barnwal, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Singh, Adv. Mr. Sadashiv, AOR
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy