Before Shifting Minor's Custody Over Disrupted Schooling, Court Must Explore If Studies Can Continue Without Changing Custody: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has set aside an order handing over custody of a ten-year-old girl to her father, holding that where the only reason for shifting custody was the interruption of the child's schooling, the Court was first required to examine whether her studies could continue while she remained with her mother, particularly when the child had said she wished to live with the...
The Allahabad High Court has set aside an order handing over custody of a ten-year-old girl to her father, holding that where the only reason for shifting custody was the interruption of the child's schooling, the Court was first required to examine whether her studies could continue while she remained with her mother, particularly when the child had said she wished to live with the mother.
The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra held,
“We are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was required to explore possibility of child to continue study at the Somerville School while continue to reside with the mother especially in view of her desire to reside with her mother, which option apparently has not been explored by learned Single Judge”
The mother left the matrimonial home on 17.05.2026 following matrimonial discord and began living with her parents along with the daughter. The father filed a habeas corpus petition seeking custody, alleging that the child, a Class V student at Somerville School, Gautam Buddh Nagar, Noida, had stopped attending school after the mother left. It was admitted that the child had not attended school since, the reason offered being that she was to be admitted to Heritage School, where the mother taught, and that the father had not given the no-objection certificate needed for the admission.
The Single Judge interacted with both parents and with the child, who said she was not attending any school as she had not yet been admitted anywhere, but wanted to live with her mother. Holding that her education was being adversely affected, and relying on the father's undertaking to ensure regular schooling and proper care, the Single Judge gave custody to the father, with visitation rights, daily video calls and vacation custody for the mother.
In appeal, the mother argued that the transfer ought not to have been ordered when the child had expressed a desire to stay with her, and that the father was withholding the no-objection certificate for Heritage School, in respect of which she had moved the Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
Counsel for the father argued that the mother's conduct in keeping the child out of school spoke for itself. Asked by the Court whether she would send the child back to Somerville School until the Heritage School admission came through, the mother, through counsel, agreed.
The Court noted that the Single Judge had recorded the wish of the ten-year-old to remain with her mother and had ordered otherwise regardless, acting only on the fact that her studies were suffering. With the mother having now agreed to continue the child's education at Somerville School, the Court held that the ground on which custody had been sought and granted no longer survived.
“In view of the fact that the reason for handing over the custody of the child to the respondent essentially has been the continuation of the study of the child, which now can continue even while in custody of the appellant as she has agreed to the proposition whereby the child would continue with her studies at Somerville School till she gets admitted to the Heritage School, the cause for filing the petition/seeking custody and the court agreeing to the same, apparently ends.”
Restoring custody to the mother, the Court granted the father visitation at his in-laws' house on alternate Sundays for three hours, temporary custody for five days at a stretch during long school vacations, and contact by mobile phone at reasonable times. It directed that the child be handed back the following day and required the Station House Officer, P.S. Phase-I, Gautam Buddh Nagar to ensure the handover without disturbance by either party.
Accordingly, the order of the Single Judge was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Counsel for Appellant :- Nipun Singh (Sr. Advocate), Naman Agarwal
Counsel for Respondent :- Udai Chandani, Ashutosh Mishra, Rajiv Singh, S.C.