Welfare Of Child Prime Consideration In Guardianship Cases: Delhi High Court Declines Father’s Plea To Move Child To A “Better” School

In a father’s plea seeking direction to his child’s mother for transfer of the child to a “better” school, the Delhi High Court has observed that welfare of the child is of prime consideration in guardianship cases. While dismissing the plea, the Bench comprising Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, noted that the child was residing in Pitampura with his mother, and the school suggested by the father was in Dwarka (20 kms away). “Any order as sought by the appellant shall be to the inconvenience of the minor child who is about 7 years of age, cannot be granted,” the court said. The appellant-father had filed the appeal assailing a Family Court order, whereby his application for direction to the respondent (child’s mother) to send the child to a school in Dwarka was dismissed. While passing its order, the Family Court had observed that though the school suggested by the father was slightly better, the child had settled in his current school and shifting him back to the Dwarka school would be harmful to his learning environment. It was also noted that the child’s mother was working in his current school. As such, the child had the “comfort of going and coming with the mother” and was under her supervision all the time. “The current school is suited to the needs of the child as his mother always remains present with him and therefore, the change of school at this stage would not be in the interest and welfare of the child,” the Family Court had said. Before the High Court, the appellant submitted that he was ready to arrange private transportation for the child between Pitampura and Dwarka. The respondent-mother countered the plea, stating that the school suggested by the appellant had a branch in Rohini and if the intention of the appellant was to send the child to the suggested school, he could arrange for the child’s admission in the Rohini branch. In this regard, the appellant replied that he was not sure if he would be able to arrange admission for the child in the Rohini branch of the suggested school. In this backdrop, the court did not find reason for interference with the Family Court order. Advocates Preeti Singh and Sunklan Porwal appeared for appellant Advocate Nikhil Rastogi appeared for respondent Case Title: Vermeet Singh Taneja v. Jasmeet Kaur, MAT.APP.(F.C.) 346/2023Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1191Click here to read/download judgment

Welfare Of Child Prime Consideration In Guardianship Cases: Delhi High Court Declines Father’s Plea To Move Child To A “Better” School

Debby Jain

Tags