.jpeg){kind=small}
Case Snapshot
Case Name: Debarati Bhunia Chakraborty v. Suman Sankar Bhunia
Citation: 2026 INSC 1043
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date of Judgment: September 23, 2026
Area of Law: Guardianship and Custody — Best Interests of the Child — Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — POCSO Act, 2012
The Judgment in One Line
The Supreme Court held that a father facing POCSO prosecution cannot be granted custody of his children, and permitted the mother to relocate them to the United Kingdom in their best interests.
Why this Judgement Matters
This judgment is a significant affirmation of the principle that the best interests of the child reign supreme over all other considerations in custody disputes. The Supreme Court refused to grant custody to a father against whom a POCSO chargesheet had been filed, even though the courts below had favoured him. The Court also expunged the High Court's unwarranted observations questioning the veracity of the POCSO FIR. Critically, the Court recognised that a mother's efforts to secure better employment and financial stability for her children should not be branded as a "nomadic lifestyle." The ruling provides clear guidance on how courts should balance financial disparity, parental alienation claims, and pending criminal proceedings in custody matters.
Background
The appellant-mother and respondent-father were married in 2011. Their son was born in 2013. Relations deteriorated in 2018 when the mother was four months pregnant. The mother claims physical assault and left the matrimonial home in September 2018, leaving the son with the father. She later retrieved the son's custody. The daughter was born in January 2019 and has remained with the mother.
Multiple proceedings were consolidated and transferred to the Family Court at Patiala House, New Delhi. In October 2023, the son disclosed incidents of sexual abuse by the father during examination at NIMHANS, Bengaluru, leading to an FIR under the POCSO Act. The father was named as an accused and a chargesheet was filed.
The Family Court, by judgment dated July 1, 2024, granted sole custody to the father. The High Court of Delhi affirmed this on January 23, 2026, while also rejecting the mother's plea to relocate the children to the United Kingdom. The mother appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Court
Whether the courts below erred in granting sole custody of the minor children to the respondent-father.
Whether the father, facing POCSO prosecution, can be granted custody of the children.
Whether the mother should be permitted to relocate the children to the United Kingdom.
Whether the High Court's observations on the veracity of the POCSO FIR were justified.
What Did the Supreme Court Hold?
Best Interests of the Child is Paramount
The Court reaffirmed that the welfare and best interests of the child are the paramount considerations in custody disputes.
The Tender Years Doctrine cannot be applied as a determinative principle.
The children's own wishes, as expressed during Court interactions and counsellor observations, are crucial.
Father Disentitled from Custody Due to POCSO Proceedings
The son disclosed sexual abuse by the father at NIMHANS, leading to an FIR and chargesheet under the POCSO Act.
The Court held that granting custody to a father facing prosecution would be "totally unwarranted and unjustified."
Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, emphasises the principles of participation, best interest, and safety of the child.
The son's safety cannot be subordinated to the father's claim for custody, particularly when the criminal case is pending.
Handing custody to the father could frustrate the prosecution by making the son's free and fair deposition virtually impossible.
High Court's Observations on POCSO FIR Expunged
The High Court had observed that the sexual abuse allegations appeared motivated and a counterblast.
The Supreme Court held these observations were "out of place, uncalled for and premature."
The FIR was lodged pursuant to a spontaneous disclosure by the child to the psychiatrist.
The observations were expunged and shall not influence the proceedings emanating from the FIR.
Mother's Efforts Appreciated, Not Branded as Nomadic
The Courts below had criticised the mother's "nomadic lifestyle" due to frequent job changes.
The Supreme Court held that the mother's repeated relocations were necessitated by circumstances, including the father's RTI applications against her.
Her efforts to secure better employment and financial stability for the children were "appreciable" and weighed heavily in her favour.
The father had not made efforts to improve his financial standing and instead pursued litigation.
Relocation to UK Permitted
The mother secured employment as a Lecturer at the University of Hull, UK, drawing approximately Rs. 3 lakhs per month.
The Court held that relocation would provide better educational opportunities and financial security for the children.
The mother was permitted to take the children to the UK and get them admitted to a good school.
She was directed to furnish an undertaking to produce the children before any Court as directed.
Key Legal Principles
Best interests of the child: The welfare of the child is paramount in custody disputes, overriding all other considerations.
POCSO proceedings and custody: A parent facing prosecution under the POCSO Act cannot be granted custody of the child victim.
Juvenile Justice Act principles: Sections 3(iii), (iv), and (vi) mandate participation, best interest, and safety of the child.
Parental alienation: Claims of parental alienation must be examined carefully; children's reluctance may be genuine, not induced.
Financial disparity: Financial status alone cannot determine custody; but a parent's efforts to secure better prospects for children are relevant.
Relocation: Relocation of children abroad may be permitted if it serves their best interests, subject to undertakings.
Judicial restraint: Courts should refrain from commenting on the veracity of pending criminal proceedings.
Important Precedents
Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2009): Held that the welfare of the child is paramount in custody matters. Relied upon.
Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh (2017): Emphasised that the child's best interests must guide custody decisions. Relied upon.
Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan (2020): Held that the child's welfare is the primary consideration in custody and relocation matters. Relied upon.
Practical Impact
For advocates, this judgment provides a clear precedent that pending POCSO proceedings against a parent will disentitle them from custody. It also clarifies that a mother's efforts to secure better employment should not be mischaracterised as instability. The ruling will be cited in custody disputes involving allegations of abuse, financial disparity, and relocation. For litigants, it reinforces that the child's safety and well-being are paramount. For law students, it illustrates the application of Juvenile Justice principles in custody matters.
Lawcurb Quick Insight
The Supreme Court expunged the High Court's observations on the POCSO FIR, holding that courts should not comment on the veracity of pending criminal proceedings. This protects the integrity of the prosecution and prevents prejudice to the child victim.
Lawcurb Practice Note
When representing a parent seeking custody, highlight the child's best interests, not just financial status. If the other parent faces criminal proceedings, emphasise the risk to the child's safety and the potential frustration of justice.
Remember this Ratio
A parent facing prosecution under the POCSO Act cannot be granted custody of the child victim, as the child's safety and best interests are paramount.
Final Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals.
The stay on the impugned judgment was made absolute.
The mother was permitted to take the children to the United Kingdom and get them admitted to a good school.
The High Court's observations on the veracity of the POCSO FIR were expunged.
The mother was directed to furnish an undertaking to produce the children before any Court as directed.
The quashing petition pending before the Calcutta High Court shall be decided independently.
Lawcurb Verdict
This judgment is a significant affirmation of the best interests of the child in custody disputes. By refusing custody to a father facing POCSO prosecution and permitting the mother to relocate the children to the UK, the Supreme Court has prioritised child safety over financial disparity and parental claims. The expunging of the High Court's observations on the POCSO FIR protects the integrity of the prosecution. A progressive and child-centric judgment.
Exam Lens
Question 1: What is the paramount consideration in custody disputes involving minor children?
Answer: The paramount consideration is the best interests and welfare of the child. The Tender Years Doctrine is not a determinative principle. Courts must consider the child's wishes, emotional bonds, safety, and overall development. In Debarati Bhunia, the Supreme Court held that the father's pending POCSO prosecution disentitled him from custody, as the child's safety was paramount.
Question 2: Can a court grant custody to a parent facing POCSO proceedings?
Answer: No. The Supreme Court held that granting custody to a father facing POCSO prosecution would be "totally unwarranted and unjustified." The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, mandates the principles of best interest and safety of the child. Handing custody to the accused parent could also frustrate the prosecution by making the child's free and fair deposition virtually impossible.
Question 3: What did the Supreme Court say about the mother's "nomadic lifestyle"?
Answer: The Supreme Court held that the mother's frequent job changes were necessitated by circumstances, including the father's RTI applications against her. Her efforts to secure better employment and financial stability for the children were "appreciable" and weighed heavily in her favour. Branding her efforts as a nomadic lifestyle was unjustified.
This report is prepared by Lawcurb for educational and informational purposes only. It is a concise summary of the judgment and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to refer to the original judgment before relying on any legal proposition.