Suman Sankar Bhunia v Debarati Bhunia Chakraborty (2026) | Delhi HC on Parental Alienation and Custody
The Delhi High Court in Suman Sankar Bhunia v Debarati Bhunia Chakraborty (2026) delivered an important judgment on child custody, parental alienation, and the evolving approach to the tender years doctrine. The Court emphasized that the welfare of the child remains the paramount consideration and may justify transfer of custody even from the mother to the father.
Background of the Case
The Family Court had granted custody of two minor children to the father. The mother challenged the order before the Delhi High Court arguing that she was the primary caregiver and better placed financially.
The dispute involved allegations of parental alienation, multiple litigations between the parties, and relocation of the children across different cities.
Issues Before the High Court
- Whether custody should remain with the mother
- Relevance of tender years doctrine
- Impact of parental alienation
- Role of financial capacity in custody decisions
Rejection of Tender Years Doctrine
The Court observed that the traditional presumption that young children should remain with the mother is no longer determinative. Modern custody decisions must be based on welfare of the child rather than stereotypical assumptions.
- Tender years doctrine not automatically applicable
- Both parents equally capable caregivers
- Child welfare is the decisive test
Parental Alienation Considered
The High Court found that the conduct of the mother indicated sustained efforts to alienate the children from the father. The Court held that custody cannot be granted based on a situation created by one parent through deliberate exclusion.
- Keeping children away from one parent is harmful
- Alienation affects psychological welfare
- Courts must restore balanced parenting
Financial Capacity Not Determinative
The Court rejected the argument that higher income of one parent should determine custody. It held that emotional stability and continuity are more important than comparative financial strength.
- Better income not decisive
- Holistic welfare test applied
- Both parents share responsibility
Views of the Children
The Court noted that while children's preferences are relevant, they cannot override welfare considerations, especially where alienation may have influenced their views.
Principles Laid Down
- Welfare of child is paramount consideration
- Tender years doctrine not decisive
- Parental alienation is harmful to child welfare
- Financial superiority not determinative
- Sibling unity should be preserved
Impact of the Judgment
This judgment is significant in custody disputes involving allegations of parental alienation. It reinforces that courts will prioritize emotional well-being and balanced parenting over traditional presumptions.
You may also read our guide on child custody law in India or consult a child custody lawyer in Chandigarh who can present parental alienation arguments before the Family Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court reaffirmed that custody decisions must focus on the child's welfare rather than parental rights. Where parental alienation is established, courts may transfer custody to ensure balanced upbringing and emotional stability.