When parents separate in Delhi, the hardest question is usually not money or property but the children: who they will live with, how often the other parent will see them, who decides their school, and whether one parent can take them to another city or abroad. This guide explains how Delhi family courts decide custody under the Guardians and Wards Act and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, what "welfare of the child" means in practice, how interim custody and visitation work, what happens when a child is taken away or out of India, how habeas corpus is and is not used, how the child's own wishes are heard, and what the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court have decided in 2025 and 2026. Share your situation in the form and an enrolment-checked advocate can call you, at no charge to you.
In Delhi, custody disputes are decided by the family court of the district where the child ordinarily resides, usually through a guardianship petition under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, or within a divorce case under section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The single most important test is the welfare of the child, which includes safety, emotional bonds, schooling, stability, health and, for an older child, the child\'s own intelligent preference. Neither parent has an automatic right; a child under five is ordinarily kept with the mother, but that is a starting point, not a rule. The parent who does not get custody is normally given visitation, which can include weekends, holidays and video calls. A parent who removes a child in breach of court orders, or takes the child abroad without permission, can face habeas corpus, contempt and adverse custody orders. Custody orders are never final and can be changed if the child\'s welfare requires.
Parents fighting over a child often speak as if the child were property to be divided: "my right", "my son", "she cannot take him". Indian courts look at it from the other end. The question a Delhi family court asks is not which parent deserves the child, but what arrangement is best for this particular child, now and as the child grows. The Supreme Court has said this in many ways over five decades, from Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal (1973) to Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2009), where it described the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration that overrides the legal rights of the parents.
That approach has practical consequences. Custody orders are never truly final; they can be revisited if the child's circumstances change. A parent who wins custody does not win the right to cut the other parent out; courts expect both parents to remain in the child's life unless that would harm the child. And conduct matters: a parent who poisons the child's mind against the other, ignores visitation orders or snatches the child can lose ground, even if that parent is otherwise loving and capable.
Delhi's custody cases go to the family judges sitting in the district complexes. A family from Central or West Delhi goes to Tis Hazari; South and South East to Saket; North and North West to Rohini; South West to Dwarka; New Delhi to Patiala House. East and North East families go to Vishwas Nagar, close to Karkardooma, and Shahdara families to Karkardooma itself. Our guide to the Delhi family courts explains each one, along with their counselling and mediation services.
| Term | Meaning in practice |
|---|---|
| Guardianship | Legal authority over the child's person and property: decisions about education, health, religion, passport, property. Usually shared by both parents even when one has custody. |
| Physical custody | Who the child lives with day to day. |
| Legal custody | Who takes major decisions; Indian orders often use "custody" for physical custody and leave guardianship with both parents. |
| Joint or shared custody | The child spends substantial time with both parents under a parenting plan, and both share decisions. |
| Visitation or access | The time the non-custodial parent spends with the child: daytime meetings, overnight stays, holidays, phone and video calls. |
| Interim custody | A temporary arrangement ordered while the case is pending, often the most important order in practice. |
| Natural guardian | The guardian recognised by law without any court order, for example the father and mother under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. |
Custody law in India is a mix of a general secular statute and personal laws, with the welfare principle running through all of them.
| Law | Applies to | Main provisions |
|---|---|---|
| Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 | Everyone, regardless of religion | Section 7 (appointment or declaration of guardian), section 9 (jurisdiction where the minor ordinarily resides), section 17 (welfare, child's preference), section 25 (return of a ward removed from custody) |
| Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 | Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists | Section 6 (natural guardians, custody of a child under five ordinarily with the mother), section 13 (welfare paramount) |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, section 26 | Hindu parents in matrimonial proceedings | Interim and final orders on custody, maintenance and education of children in a divorce or other matrimonial case |
| Special Marriage Act, 1954, section 38 | Couples married under the SMA | Same power as section 26 HMA |
| Divorce Act, 1869, sections 41 to 44 | Christians | Custody of children during and after divorce proceedings |
| Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, section 49 | Parsis | Custody of children in matrimonial suits |
| Muslim personal law (hizanat) | Muslims | Mother's right of custody of young children, subject to the welfare principle and the Guardians and Wards Act |
| DV Act, section 21 | Women facing domestic violence | Temporary custody and visitation orders by the magistrate |
If a divorce or other matrimonial case is already pending, custody is usually sought within it under section 26 HMA (or the equivalent provision in other laws), which avoids a separate case. If no matrimonial case is pending, for example where the parents are separated but neither has filed for divorce, or where grandparents seek custody, a petition under the Guardians and Wards Act is filed in the family court. In practice many Delhi families have both, and the family court often hears them together.
Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act says the natural guardian of a Hindu minor boy or unmarried girl is the father, and after him the mother, provided that custody of a minor who has not completed five years ordinarily remains with the mother. The Githa Hariharan ruling of 1999 interpreted the word "after" as "in the absence of", so that the mother can act as natural guardian even during the father's lifetime when he is absent, uninterested or unable to act. For an illegitimate child, the mother is the natural guardian, and after her the father. A Delhi case, ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi), decided in 2015, settled that an unmarried mother could apply for guardianship of her child without notice to the father.
Under traditional Hanafi law, the mother has hizanat, the right of custody, of a son until about seven years and a daughter until puberty, while the father remains the natural guardian. Courts in Delhi apply these rules, but the Guardians and Wards Act and the welfare principle prevail: a mother may be given custody beyond those ages, or a father earlier, if the child's welfare requires it.
Under section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, a guardianship petition is filed in the court having jurisdiction where the minor ordinarily resides. This is a question of fact, not simply where the child happens to be on the day of filing. In Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo (2011), which arose from a child brought from the United States to Delhi, the Supreme Court held that the Delhi court had jurisdiction because the child was ordinarily residing in Delhi when the petition was filed. Parents sometimes rush to file in a city where they have just taken the child; courts look at where the child really lived, studied and had roots.
"Welfare of the child" is not a slogan. Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act tells the court to be guided by what appears to be for the welfare of the minor, considering the age, sex and religion of the minor, the character and capacity of the proposed guardian and how closely related the guardian is, the wishes of a deceased parent if any, and any existing or previous relations of the proposed guardian with the minor or the minor's property. If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference, the court may consider that preference. Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act makes welfare the paramount consideration.
In X v. Y (decided 4 February 2026), a bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti set aside a High Court judgment that had restored two boys to their mother after she brought them from Qatar to Srinagar in the middle of the school year without the father's consent, their passports or the foreign court's permission. As reported, the Supreme Court held that while the welfare of the child is the central consideration, it is not the sole one: parental conduct, educational stability, financial capacity, living conditions and existing court orders are also relevant, and the High Court had erred by looking at welfare in isolation and ignoring counselling reports in which the children expressed comfort with their father. The matter was sent back for fresh decision.
Where both parents are unavailable, have died, or are unfit, grandparents can apply for guardianship and custody. Courts weigh the child's bond with the grandparents and the stability they offer against the claim of a surviving parent. The natural guardian's claim carries weight, but in reported cases the Supreme Court has left children with grandparents who had raised them, after speaking to the child and finding that a sudden change would harm the child. Grandparents can also seek visitation where a parent cuts them off.
The law contains one express preference: section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act says custody of a child below five years shall ordinarily be with the mother. "Ordinarily" means this is the normal course, not an absolute rule; a mother who is unfit, unwilling or has abandoned the child can be denied custody even of a very young child. For older children, there is no statutory preference for either parent.
In practice, Delhi family courts still give custody of young children to mothers in most contested cases, largely because mothers are more often the primary caregivers. But fathers who have been genuinely involved in day-to-day care, and who can show a stable home and support system, do obtain custody, especially of older children and where the mother's circumstances are unsettled. Equally, a working mother is not at a disadvantage merely because she works; the question is the arrangement she can provide.
| Argument | How courts usually respond |
|---|---|
| "She has no income" | Not decisive. The father can be ordered to pay maintenance; income is not a test of parenting. |
| "He works long hours" | Relevant if no practical care arrangement exists; less so if grandparents or reliable help are available. |
| "She left the matrimonial home" | Leaving with the child is not wrong by itself; the reasons and later conduct matter. |
| "The child is a boy, he should stay with the father" | Not a valid consideration on its own. |
| "She has remarried" | The new household is examined, including the step-parent's attitude, but remarriage alone does not disqualify. |
| "He has a criminal case against him" | Depends on what the case is about and whether it bears on the child's safety. |
Indian statutes do not define joint custody, but courts have increasingly used it. In many Delhi cases today, the order is not "custody to the mother, visitation to the father" in its old form, but a detailed arrangement in which the child lives mainly with one parent and spends regular weekends, a share of school holidays and festivals with the other, with both parents involved in decisions about schooling and health.
One parent has physical custody, and the other has visitation. This remains the most common outcome where the parents live far apart, communicate poorly, or one parent poses a risk to the child.
The child spends substantial time in both homes. It works best where the parents live close to each other, the child's school is reachable from both homes, and the parents can cooperate on practical matters. Courts do not impose shared custody on parents who cannot speak to each other without conflict, because the child bears the cost.
A parenting plan is a written schedule covering where the child lives on weekdays and weekends, holidays and festivals, birthdays, school events, phone and video calls, pick-up and drop arrangements, travel, decision-making on schooling, health and religion, and how disputes will be resolved. Delhi mediation centres regularly help parents draft such plans, and family courts can record them as consent orders. A detailed plan prevents the kind of daily friction that otherwise returns to court as contempt and modification applications.
| Period | Example arrangement |
|---|---|
| School weeks | Child lives with Parent A; Parent B has alternate weekends from Friday after school to Sunday 6 pm and one mid-week dinner. |
| Phone and video | Parent B may call or video call on fixed days at fixed times, such as Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 7.30 pm. |
| Summer vacation | Split roughly half and half, with travel plans notified in advance. |
| Winter break | Alternate years, or split. |
| Festivals | Diwali, Eid, Christmas, Gurpurab or other festivals alternated each year, or divided by day. |
| Birthdays | Child's birthday shared, for example lunch with one parent and dinner with the other; each parent's birthday with that parent. |
| School events | Both parents may attend parent-teacher meetings and functions; the school is given both parents' contact details. |
The court issues notice to the other parent. Delhi family courts usually refer custody disputes to counselling with the court's counsellors and to mediation, both to explore a settlement and, in the case of counsellors, to understand the child's situation. The court may interact with the child in chambers. If there is no settlement, both parents file evidence, are cross-examined, and the court hears arguments. Contested custody cases in Delhi commonly take a year or more to decide finally, which is why interim custody and visitation orders matter so much.
Court fees are small. What costs money is legal representation, and women, children and other eligible people can get that free through legal aid; see free legal aid eligibility.
An interim custody order decides where the child lives while the case is pending, which can be a year or more. By the time the final hearing comes, the child has a settled routine under the interim arrangement, and courts are reluctant to disturb a settled child without good reason. This is the "status quo" effect, and every experienced family lawyer in Delhi plans around it.
Move quickly. A parent who waits months while the other parent settles the child in a new city and school weakens the case for change. At the same time, do not take matters into your own hands by removing the child: self-help undermines your credibility and can lead to orders against you. File for interim relief, ask for early listing, and keep a record of every attempt to see or speak to the child.
Courts treat contact with both parents as the child's right, not merely the parent's. In Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan (2020), the Supreme Court said that a child has a human right to the love and affection of both parents, and that courts should grant visitation, including video contact, to the parent who does not have custody, unless there are strong reasons not to. It suggested that where parents live in different countries, the non-custodial parent should have regular video calls and physical visits when possible.
| Type | When it is used |
|---|---|
| Supervised visitation | Initially, after a long gap, where the child is very young, or where there are concerns about safety. Meetings may take place at the court premises, a counsellor's office or another neutral place. |
| Unsupervised daytime visits | The usual next step, for a few hours on weekends. |
| Overnight and weekend stays | Once the child is comfortable and the parent has suitable arrangements. |
| Holiday and festival sharing | Commonly ordered for school-going children. |
| Video and phone calls | Fixed days and times, especially where the parent lives in another city or abroad. |
Visitation can be refused or restricted where it would harm the child: credible evidence of abuse, violence, substance abuse, or a real risk of the child being taken away. Allegations must be backed by evidence; courts are wary of allegations raised only to block contact. The Supreme Court in 'R' v. 'E', reported by Mara Vakil, cautioned against the misuse of the POCSO Act in custody disputes and required expert psychological assessment of the child before a parent is arrested on such allegations. See our news report on that decision.
Non-compliance with visitation orders is common and corrosive. The remedies include an application for execution and enforcement of the order, contempt proceedings, and, in serious and persistent cases, modification of custody itself. A parent who repeatedly frustrates visitation shows the court that the child's relationship with the other parent is not safe in that parent's hands. Keep a written log of every missed visit, message and call.
Where one parent systematically turns the child against the other, courts take it seriously. In Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh (2017), the Supreme Court discussed parental alienation syndrome and the harm it causes to children. Delhi family courts rely on counsellors' assessments to identify alienation and may order therapy, graduated visitation or, in extreme cases, a change of custody.
Section 17(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act says that if the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference, the court may consider that preference. There is no fixed age. Delhi family judges commonly speak to children from around seven or eight upwards, and give more weight to the views of teenagers, while recognising that a child's stated wish may reflect pressure, temporary anger, or a desire to please the parent present.
The interaction usually happens in chambers, away from the parents and lawyers, in a relaxed setting. The judge may talk to the child about school, friends, hobbies and daily life, and only gradually about each parent. Judges try not to put the child in the position of "choosing" between parents. A counsellor may be present or may meet the child separately and report to the court.
Delhi family courts have counsellors attached to them. In custody matters, the court may ask a counsellor to meet both parents and the child, sometimes more than once, and report on the child's emotional state, bonds with each parent, and any signs of coaching or alienation. In serious cases, the court can direct assessment by a child psychologist or psychiatrist from a government hospital. These reports often carry considerable weight. Parents should approach counselling honestly and without trying to coach the child.
One of the most common Delhi scenarios is a mother who goes to her parents in another city with the child, or a father who keeps the child after a weekend visit. Neither parent commits a crime merely by keeping their own child, but the law gives remedies. The left-behind parent can file a guardianship petition or a section 25 application in the court where the child ordinarily resided, seek interim custody or return, and seek visitation. Courts look at the reasons for leaving, the child's welfare in the new place, and whether the move was a genuine relocation or a tactic. In the February 2026 Supreme Court case mentioned above, a mid-session removal without consent counted against the parent who moved the children.
If you fear the other parent will take the child abroad or to another state, ask the family court early for an order restraining removal without the court's permission, directing deposit of the child's passport with the court, and informing the Regional Passport Office. Such orders are routinely granted where there is a real risk. Under the passport rules, a minor's passport normally requires the consent of both parents, and courts can direct the passport office not to issue or reissue one without permission. The Delhi High Court has asked passport authorities to explain how a child's passport was issued while guardianship proceedings were pending.
India has not signed the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, so foreign custody orders are not automatically enforced. Indian courts decide such cases on the welfare principle, treating the foreign order as one important factor. In Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017), arising from Delhi, the Supreme Court refused to order the return of a child to the United Kingdom and held that the principle of comity of courts must yield to the welfare of the child. In other cases, such as Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali (2019) and Rohith Thammana Gowda v. State of Karnataka (2022), the Court ordered children to be returned to the foreign country where that served their welfare. The outcome depends heavily on how long the child has been in India, the child's roots in each country, the existing foreign order and the conduct of each parent.
Where a child is taken abroad from Delhi in breach of an Indian court order, the Delhi High Court has entertained habeas corpus petitions and passed directions for the child's return, visitation and restrictions on travel, as in a 2024 case concerning a child taken to the United States while guardianship and visitation proceedings were pending. Enforcement abroad still depends on the laws of the other country, so prevention through early restraint orders is far better than cure.
A writ of habeas corpus asks a High Court to order a person holding someone in illegal custody to produce that person. Parents often think of it as the quickest way to get a child back. The courts have narrowed its use in custody disputes between parents.
In Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari (2019), the Supreme Court held that habeas corpus can be used in child custody matters where the detention of the child by a parent or others is illegal and without authority of law, but that in disputes between parents, where both are natural guardians, the High Court should ordinarily leave the matter to the family court, which can examine welfare in detail. Habeas corpus is more appropriate where there is a clear court order being defied, where the child is in the custody of a stranger, or where the child has been taken abroad in breach of orders.
The Delhi High Court applied this in Rohan Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) on 23 February 2026, when a Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja declined to order the return of a six-year-old girl whom her mother had taken to her parental home in Uttarakhand. Because the child was with her mother, a natural guardian, her custody was not illegal; custody and visitation had to be decided by the competent family court. The Bench directed, as an interim measure, that the mother ensure the child's contact with the father in person or by video, and left both parties to pursue their remedies.
In ordinary disputes between parents, filing promptly in the family court for interim custody and visitation is usually faster and more effective than a habeas petition that the High Court may decline to entertain. Our Delhi High Court guide explains writ procedure.
Because welfare changes as children grow, custody and visitation orders can be modified on a material change in circumstances: a parent relocating, a child entering adolescence and expressing a strong preference, a new risk in one home, repeated non-compliance with visitation, or a change in a parent's health or work. The application goes to the court that passed the order, or the family court with jurisdiction.
A family court's final custody decision can be taken in appeal to the Delhi High Court; the Family Courts Act (section 19) allows 30 days for this. Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act also lists appealable orders. Interim orders are sometimes challenged, but the High Court interferes only where the order is clearly wrong or causes serious harm to the child.
A parent who disobeys a custody or visitation order can face execution proceedings, contempt, costs, and adverse orders in the custody case itself. Under section 26 of the Guardians and Wards Act, removal of a ward from the limits of the court's jurisdiction without leave can attract consequences. Courts also use police assistance to implement orders where needed, though they try to avoid traumatic handovers.
The parent the child lives with may seek child support from the other; the parent paying maintenance is entitled to visitation, and neither can be used as a bargaining chip against the other. Our guide to maintenance cases in Delhi explains child support in detail.
Genuine allegations of abuse must be reported and acted on, including under the POCSO Act. False allegations made to gain an advantage in a custody case damage the accusing parent's credibility and can attract proceedings for false complaints. Courts increasingly seek expert assessment of the child before acting on allegations made in the middle of a custody dispute.
The families below are invented, put together from common patterns, to show how a court thinks.
The family lived in Dwarka; the five-year-old studied at a school nearby. After a quarrel, the mother took the boy to her parents in Lucknow and stopped phone contact. Within three weeks, the father's advocate files a guardianship petition in the family court at Dwarka, where the child ordinarily resided, with school records and photographs, seeking interim visitation and video calls, and an order restraining removal from India. The court issues notice and refers the parents to counselling. Interim video calls three times a week and visitation in Delhi on alternate weekends are ordered. Given the child's age and that the mother has been the main caregiver, interim custody stays with her, but the court notes the mid-session school change and asks both parents to propose school arrangements.
A software engineer with a demanding job has cared for her eight-year-old daughter since separation, with help from her own mother who lives in the same building. The father argues she has no time for the child. The counsellor's report describes a close bond, regular school attendance and good care. The court continues custody with the mother and gives the father alternate weekends, half of summer and winter vacations, and festival sharing under a detailed parenting plan.
A child's mother dies; the father, who works abroad and had little contact, returns to claim the child, who has lived with the maternal grandparents for four years. The grandparents file a guardianship petition. The judge speaks to the eleven-year-old, who wants to stay. The court grants custody to the grandparents for the time being with generous visitation and video contact for the father, and leaves it open to revisit if the father settles in India and rebuilds the relationship.
During pending custody proceedings at Tis Hazari, a father fears the mother will move to Canada with their son. His advocate seeks and obtains an order that the child's passport be deposited in court and that the child not be taken out of India without permission. Months later, the mother applies for permission to relocate for a job; the court weighs the child's schooling, the father's involvement and the proposed contact arrangements before deciding. Because the restraint order was in place, the decision is made by the court rather than by a fait accompli.
Custody cases are emotional, and a good lawyer helps you keep the focus on the child. Look for an advocate who:
Fill in the form above with a few lines about your child and the dispute, and Delhi custody lawyers whose enrolment has been checked can call you. The call and the introduction are free; if you go ahead, you and the lawyer fix the fee between yourselves. Mara Vakil's own charges apply only to paperwork it prepares, for instance a mutual divorce petition with an agreed parenting plan, or a legal notice. Related guides: domestic violence cases in Delhi, 498A and dowry cases, family lawyers in Delhi, divorce lawyers in Delhi and how to choose an advocate.
When one parent dies, the surviving parent ordinarily becomes the child's guardian and custodian. A Hindu father or mother who is the natural guardian can also appoint a testamentary guardian by will under section 9 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, to act after both parents are gone; a mother's appointment prevails over the father's in certain situations under that section. Disputes between a surviving parent and the deceased parent's family, typically grandparents who have been raising the child, are decided on welfare, with the surviving parent's claim given due weight.
Where a child has a disability or a serious medical condition, courts look closely at which parent has managed therapies, school support and medical care, and which home offers continuity of treatment. Arrangements for visitation may need to fit around therapy schedules. A child with a disability may continue to need support after turning eighteen, and maintenance under section 144 of the BNSS extends to adult children who cannot maintain themselves because of physical or mental abnormality.
An adopted child has the same status as a biological child. Custody disputes between adoptive parents are decided like any other, on welfare. Under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act and the Juvenile Justice framework, an adoption once completed cannot be undone merely because the adoptive parents separate.
Many Delhi custody cases involve one parent working abroad. Courts try to preserve the child's relationship with that parent through video calls, extended holiday visits in India and, where appropriate, visits abroad with safeguards such as undertakings, deposit of return tickets or security, and mirror orders in the foreign court. Permission to take a child abroad on a holiday is commonly granted to a parent with a reliable record of compliance, and refused where there is a real risk of non-return.
Major decisions about a child's school, religion and name are matters of guardianship. Where parents share guardianship, one should not change the child's school, religion or surname without the other's agreement or the court's permission. Schools in Delhi generally share report cards and information with both parents if asked, and courts can direct schools to do so.
Relocation cases, where the custodial parent wants to move to another city or country for work or remarriage, are among the hardest. Courts balance the custodial parent's legitimate wish to build a life, the benefits to the child, and the effect on the child's relationship with the other parent. Detailed proposals for contact, travel costs and schooling make a relocation application much stronger.
Where there is domestic violence, the safety of the child and the custodial parent comes first. Temporary custody can be ordered by the magistrate under the DV Act, and the family court will take violence into account in deciding custody and in setting visitation conditions such as supervision. Our DV guide explains those remedies.
The family court of the district where the child ordinarily resides, or the court hearing the parents' divorce case.
The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for everyone, with the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and other personal laws, and custody provisions in marriage laws.
The welfare of the child, which overrides the parents' legal rights.
It is paramount but not the only one. In February 2026 the Supreme Court said conduct, stability, finances and existing orders also matter.
No. A child under five is ordinarily kept with the mother, but older children can go to either parent depending on welfare.
Yes, if the mother is unfit, unwilling or has abandoned the child, or if the father has been the main caregiver.
The father, and after him the mother. After Githa Hariharan (1999), the mother can act during the father's lifetime if he is absent or uninterested.
The mother, and after her the father, under section 6(b) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.
The Supreme Court allowed this in ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2015).
Custody is where the child lives; guardianship is legal authority over the child's person and property, often shared by both parents.
An arrangement where the child spends substantial time with both parents and both share major decisions.
Yes, increasingly, where parents live close and can cooperate. It is not imposed on parents in constant conflict.
A written schedule of where the child lives, holidays, festivals, calls, travel and decision-making, often recorded as a consent order.
In the family court where the child ordinarily resides. If a divorce case is pending, in that case.
Where the child really lives and studies, not just where the child is on the filing day. See Ruchi Majoo (2011).
Usually yes, if the child ordinarily lived in Delhi before being taken, and you file promptly.
A section 7 application under the 1890 Act seeking appointment or declaration of a guardian and a custody order.
It lets the court order the return of a ward who has left or been removed from the guardian's custody, if that serves the child's welfare.
It allows interim and final orders on custody, maintenance and education of children in matrimonial proceedings.
A temporary custody arrangement while the case is pending, which often shapes the final outcome.
Interim visitation can be ordered within weeks of filing; interim custody depends on the facts and the court's schedule.
Contested cases commonly take a year or more. Interim orders come much sooner.
Usually. Delhi family courts refer custody disputes to court counsellors and mediation.
Often, for children old enough, in chambers away from the parents.
There is no fixed age. Courts consider the intelligent preference of a mature child, giving more weight to older children.
A mature child's preference is considered but is not binding. The court decides on overall welfare.
The non-custodial parent's time with the child, including visits, overnight stays, holidays and calls.
Yes. In Yashita Sahu (2020), the Supreme Court said a child has a human right to the love and affection of both parents.
Yes. Courts routinely order video and phone contact, especially when parents live in different cities or countries.
Meetings in the presence of a counsellor or at a neutral place, used after a long gap or where there are safety concerns.
Where contact would harm the child, such as proven abuse, violence or a real risk of abduction.
Apply for enforcement and contempt, keep a log of refusals, and seek modification of custody if it persists.
When one parent turns the child against the other. The Supreme Court discussed its harm in Vivek Singh (2017).
In serious and persistent cases, yes, after expert assessment.
Not by itself. The court examines the new household and the step-parent's attitude.
No. The richer parent can be ordered to pay maintenance; income alone does not decide custody.
Yes. Working is not a disadvantage if she has practical care arrangements.
Yes, where parents are dead, absent or unfit, or where the child has been raised by them and moving would harm the child.
Courts can grant grandparents visitation where it serves the child's welfare.
Courts generally avoid separating siblings unless their welfare requires it.
Under hizanat, the mother has custody of young children, but the welfare principle and the Guardians and Wards Act prevail.
Custody in divorce cases is governed by sections 41 to 44 of the Divorce Act, 1869, with the welfare principle.
Yes. It can restrain removal, order the passport deposited in court and inform the passport office.
Normally both parents' consent is needed; courts can direct the passport office not to issue one without permission.
No. Indian courts decide such cases on the child's welfare, treating foreign orders as one factor.
Sometimes. Nithya Anand Raghavan (2017) refused return; Lahari Sakhamuri (2019) and Rohith Thammana Gowda (2022) ordered it.
Possible where custody is clearly illegal or orders are defied, but High Courts usually leave disputes between parents to the family court.
It declined habeas corpus because the child was with her mother, a natural guardian, and left custody to the family court, ordering interim contact.
A 2019 Supreme Court decision on when habeas corpus is appropriate in child custody disputes.
Generally not merely for keeping their own child, but defying court orders can lead to contempt and adverse custody orders.
Yes, on a material change in circumstances, because welfare changes as children grow.
By appeal to the Delhi High Court, filed within a month of the order.
No. Maintenance and visitation are separate; seek enforcement of visitation instead.
Major decisions like schooling are usually expected to involve both guardians; the court can resolve disagreements.
A major relocation usually needs the other parent's agreement or court permission, especially if visitation orders exist.
Parents agree on custody, visitation and support, and the court records it, checking that it serves the child.
Yes, but the court must be satisfied the arrangement serves the child's welfare; parents cannot bargain away the child's rights.
Genuine allegations must be acted on. Courts increasingly seek expert assessment before acting on allegations raised mid-dispute.
In 'R' v. 'E', it said an FIR should not automatically lead to arrest, and expert assessment of the child should come first.
It can grant temporary custody under section 21 of the DV Act. Final custody is for the family court.
Only if it bears on the child's safety or the parent's fitness.
No. Self-help undermines credibility and can lead to orders against you. File for interim relief instead.
School records, medical records, photos and messages showing involvement, proof of a suitable home and care arrangements.
No. Do not coach the child or criticise the other parent in front of them.
Yes, once the child is comfortable and the father has suitable arrangements.
Usually alternated each year or split, as set out in the order or parenting plan.
Supervised meetings can be arranged at court premises or another neutral place.
Yes: regular video calls and in-person time during visits to India or holidays.
Courts explore why, often with counsellors, and may start with short supervised meetings.
Rarely, and only where it clearly serves the child's welfare, typically where the step-parent raised the child.
The law does not prefer by gender; age, needs and welfare decide.
Many hearings and counselling sessions can be held by video, but courts usually meet children in person.
Both parents share responsibility; the non-custodial parent usually pays maintenance.
Major changes need both guardians' consent or a court order.
Not legally, but custody cases benefit greatly from experienced representation. Legal aid is available.
Fees differ widely with seniority and how contested the case is; get the fee in writing at the outset.
Yes. Finding and talking to an advocate costs nothing; only platform-drafted documents carry a fee.
No. It introduces you to independent advocates and is not a law firm.
The family court at the Dwarka court complex, serving South West Delhi.
The East district family courts at Vishwas Nagar near Karkardooma.
Tis Hazari, where West Delhi's family judges sit.
The family courts at the Rohini court complex.
South Delhi's family courts inside the Saket complex.
It guides the court to decide by the child's welfare, considering age, sex, religion, the guardian's character and the child's preference.
It names the natural guardians and keeps a child under five ordinarily with the mother.
It makes the welfare of the minor the paramount consideration in appointing a guardian.
Yes, if circumstances change materially and the change serves the child's welfare.
Courts can ask counsellors or child welfare experts to assess homes and report.
Yes. A Hindu natural guardian can appoint a testamentary guardian by will under section 9 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act.
Usually the surviving parent, though grandparents can seek custody if that clearly serves the child's welfare.
Courts focus on continuity of care, therapy and schooling, and on which parent has managed these.
With the other parent's consent or court permission, often with safeguards like undertakings or security.
Only with consent or court permission; courts weigh the child's benefits against the loss of contact with the other parent.
Yes. Courts can direct schools to share report cards and information with both parents.
No. A completed adoption stands; custody of an adopted child is decided on welfare like any other.
Yes. Courts give priority to the child's and custodial parent's safety and may order supervised visits.
An order obtained in a foreign court matching the Indian order, used as a safeguard when a child travels abroad.
Yes. Courts may require undertakings, deposits or return tickets before permitting travel abroad.
This page gives general information based on the sources listed, as checked on 17 October 2026. Custody outcomes depend on each child's circumstances; confirm with an advocate before acting. Mara Vakil is a technology platform, not a law firm, and does not give legal advice. Read our disclaimer.
Join Mara Vakil and receive client requests from Delhi. Free, enrolment-checked profile. Client requests in your practice area, no commission on your fees, a free case diary and your court group. Apply in about 10 minutes.