Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation

“After Deliberately Keeping the Children Away from One Parent, the Other Cannot Assert Primary Caregiver Status” – In a compelling verdict Delhi High Court decisively rejected a mother's appeal seeking custody of her two minor children, holding that the welfare of the child must override outdated doctrines and manipulative parenting tactics. The Court refused to be swayed by the so-called "tender years doctrine," declaring it legally obsolete in modern child custody jurisprudence.

The Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar upheld the Family Court’s order granting sole custody to the father, stressing that emotional manipulation, false allegations, and systematic alienation of the other parent cannot form the bedrock of a claim for custody.

The Court closed the chapter on a long-drawn custody dispute that had reached appellate levels with deep personal, psychological, and legal complexities.

“Childhood Is Not Lived on Screens – Relocation That Cuts Off Real Parenting Is Unacceptable”

The judgment traced how the mother had repeatedly relocated across States and sought to take the children abroad, all the while systematically alienating them from their father. The Court noted that the children, especially the elder one, had grown hostile to the father due to sustained and one-sided narratives.

“The right to express preference is not a veto power in custody matters, especially when the preference is clearly shaped by years of alienation,” the Court observed. It added, “a child’s views matter, but only when formed in a free and emotionally neutral environment.”

The mother’s plea for taking the children out of India, citing her job and better financial standing, was flatly rejected. The Court refused to reduce fatherhood to “episodic digital presence,” stating firmly that “childhood is not lived on screens.”

“False Sexual Allegations Raised Late in Trial Are Counterblasts, Not Truth”

In what may set a benchmark for future custody disputes, the High Court made sharp observations on false allegations of sexual abuse, which were introduced not in the pleadings, but during the affidavit of evidence—a tactic seen increasingly in bitter matrimonial litigation.

“These allegations appear motivated and in the nature of a counterblast,” the Court held, pointing out that the mother made no mention of these grave accusations in her initial response to the custody petition. The Bench found this not only suspect but also damaging to the credibility of the appellant.

Quoting legal precedent, the Court warned against the weaponization of false abuse charges: “Such conduct not only undermines the sanctity of genuine cases but severely harms the child’s long-term psychological well-being.”

“Custody Is Not a Right to Be Claimed – It Is a Responsibility to Be Earned”

The Bench refused to entertain the argument that the mother, having been the “primary caregiver,” should automatically retain custody. It held that “no parent can first remove the other from the child’s life and then claim status as sole caregiver by default.”

The mother’s emphasis on her financial superiority also failed to move the Court. “Better financial resources may help but cannot replace stability, integrity, and the ability to foster healthy co-parenting,” it ruled.

On the issue of introducing new financial documents in appeal, the Court reminded that revisional or appellate stages are not a platform to cure evidentiary defects from trial. "What was not shown to the Family Court cannot be allowed here unless it meets strict legal standards," the Court said while rejecting her belated effort to present fresh evidence.

“Contempt Cannot Survive Once the Main Case Ends” – Court Closes Contempt Case over Interim Visitation

In a related development, the Court also disposed of the father’s contempt petition alleging non-compliance with interim visitation orders. It observed that once the final decision on custody is rendered, the contempt plea relating to interim access loses its force.

“Now that the main matter is conclusively decided, continuing to hear a contempt plea based on interim orders would be legally unwarranted,” the Bench remarked, although it added that “this should not be seen as approval of disobedience.”

The Court granted liberty to both parties to move the Family Court for managing visitation, counselling, and structured interaction in future.

“Parental Alienation Is Not a Strategy – It Is a Psychological Injury to the Child”

The judgment sends a loud and clear message that parental alienation will not be rewarded by Indian courts. It affirms that children must be insulated from litigation warfare, and courts will not validate tactics that emotionally damage minors under the garb of caregiving.

The Court concluded that keeping siblings together under the father's custody served their best interests, and allowed for gradual rebuilding of their relationship with the alienated parent. “Custody disputes must not become a theatre of entitlement – they are about the child’s right to a wholesome future,” the Bench said.

The decision marks a vital step in evolving child custody law in India, tilting the balance firmly toward the holistic, long-term welfare of children over emotional arguments or archaic legal presumptions.

Date of Decision: 23 January 2026