Why in news?
The Delhi High Court recently decided a custody dispute in favour of the father of a five‑year‑old child, ruling that the child’s welfare trumped the traditional “tender years” presumption. The court observed that the mother had interfered with the father’s access and emphasised that decisions must be based on the best interests of the child.
Background
The tender years doctrine originated in 19th‑century English common law and assumed that children under roughly seven years old were better off in their mother’s custody. Modern family law has largely abandoned this presumption in favour of the “best interests of the child” standard, which considers the child’s emotional, educational, physical and social needs.
In the case before the Delhi High Court, the father sought custody after alleging that the mother restricted his visitation and attempted to alienate the child. The court examined evidence of both parents’ conduct, the child’s bonding with each parent, schooling arrangements and stability.
Key observations
- Child’s welfare paramount: The court ruled that the tender years doctrine cannot override the child’s overall welfare. While a young child’s attachment to the mother is important, it is only one of many factors to consider.
- Parental alienation: Evidence showed that the mother had deliberately hampered the father’s access, even after court orders. The court noted that such behaviour harms the child’s emotional wellbeing and weighed this against the mother’s claim.
- Holistic assessment: In awarding custody to the father, the court considered the child’s comfort with both parents, school proximity, the parents’ ability to provide stability and their willingness to encourage the child’s relationship with the other parent.
Understanding the doctrine
- Origins: The tender years doctrine emerged when women had few legal rights and fathers were often deemed unsuitable caregivers. It provided a presumption in favour of maternal custody for very young children.
- Modern shift: Courts across jurisdictions now favour the “best interests” standard, which assesses each case individually rather than applying rigid presumptions. Factors include the child’s age, health, parental capacity, cultural background and the child’s preferences where appropriate.
- Indian context: Indian statutes such as the Guardian and Wards Act and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act do not codify the tender years doctrine but recognise that mothers may be preferred custodians for children below five years, subject to the child’s welfare.
Significance
- Child‑centric jurisprudence: The judgement reinforces that custody decisions must prioritise the child’s overall wellbeing rather than adhere to outdated presumptions.
- Warning against alienation: The court’s criticism of parental alienation sends a message that attempts to obstruct another parent’s relationship with the child can backfire in custody disputes.
- Evolution of family law: The case illustrates the broader trend in Indian jurisprudence toward gender‑neutral, evidence‑based custody determinations.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s ruling highlights that the tender years doctrine is no longer a decisive factor in child custody. Courts will examine the facts of each case and focus on the child’s best interests, ensuring that both parents contribute to the child’s upbringing unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise.
Source: Verdictum
