The Allahabad High Court has ruled that before issuing any direction to send a child to a boarding school amid a custody dispute between parents, a psychological evaluation of the child is necessary to determine whether the child can handle separation from the parent with whom he or she has been living. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh emphasized that the Court must ensure the child is neither used as a weapon in a legal battle between parents nor victimized. They stated that sending a child to a boarding school cannot be treated as a simplistic or automatic solution. Rather, it is essential to assess the child’s psychological capacity to deal with the emotional impact of being removed from the familiar parent before deciding such a significant change.
In the case before the Court, the parents were involved in a bitter dispute over the custody and visitation rights concerning their minor son. The mother and father were married in 2017 and had their son in 2018. However, following serious deterioration in their relationship, they separated and initiated multiple legal proceedings against each other. After the separation, the mother moved from Dhanbad in Jharkhand to Lucknow with the child. The mother alleged that the father, under the pretext of taking the son on a drive in Lucknow, removed the child from her protective custody and took him to Dhanbad. In response to this alleged act, the mother lodged a First Information Report (FIR) against the father and filed a Habeas Corpus petition before the High Court to secure custody of their minor son.
The Single Judge hearing the habeas corpus petition ordered that custody of the child be handed over to the mother, while granting visitation rights to the father. Subsequently, the father contended that the mother was obstructing his visitation rights and filed another habeas corpus petition. This second habeas corpus petition was dismissed on the ground that an application was already pending in the earlier petition, indicating that the matter was alive and ongoing, and that a second habeas corpus petition was not maintainable. Following this, the father filed a contempt petition against the mother. During the hearing of the contempt petition, the mother assured the Court that she would comply with the orders concerning visitation. With special appeals having been filed by both parties, the High Court dismissed the contempt petition.
Throughout the litigation, both parents filed various applications and challenged modifications regarding the father’s visitation rights in intra court appeals. Despite concerted efforts by the Court to reconcile the parents for the child’s welfare, those efforts failed. As an interim measure, the Court directed that the parties should meet the child together and behave civilly in his presence. The Court noted that the couple had levied reciprocal allegations and counter-allegations against each other that were primarily factual in nature and could be best evaluated once both parties were allowed to lead evidence. However, the key challenge before the Bench remained how to secure the best interests of the child amidst the marital conflict between the parents.
The main contentious issues before the High Court were whether custody of the child should be granted to the father and whether the request to send the child to a boarding school should be accepted. In its observations, the Court noted that the child had lived with the mother for the majority of his life and was performing well academically in a reputable school in Lucknow. The Court remarked that had this been a situation where the parents were living together and constantly fighting, the option of a boarding school might have been considered. Since the child had not displayed any signs of distress while living with his mother, the Court expressed that uprooting him from his familiar environment might not be appropriate, particularly given that he was accustomed to his lifestyle, schooling, friends, and general ecosystem, which were comfortable for him.
At the time of the judgment, the child was about seven years old. The Court found no evidence of accentuating circumstances indicating that he was living in a toxic household with his mother. Without such evidence, the Court held that removing the child from his mother’s custody and placing him under the father’s custody or sending the child to a boarding school was not considered appropriate at that stage. The Court also observed that the father had a petition pending under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 before the Trial Court, and therefore refrained from altering the child’s custody from the mother to the father.
With regard to the father’s proposal to send the child to a boarding school, the Court pointed out that there was no report or expert opinion on record to show that the child could emotionally handle being physically separated from his mother by being placed in such an environment. The absence of any psychological evaluation or expert opinion meant the Court could not responsibly decide in favor of sending the child to a boarding school. The Bench indicated that this issue could be addressed by the Family Court if reports from qualified experts were presented there for consideration.
The High Court also observed that the first order granting visitation rights to the father was sufficiently detailed, and the Court expressed hope that both parents would prioritize the child’s best interest and adhere to the orders already passed. The judgment reflects the Court’s stance that any significant change in the child’s custody arrangement, especially one involving removal from the familiar custodial environment or placement in a boarding school, requires careful consideration and evidence-based assessment of the child’s emotional and psychological well-being.
The case before the High Court was titled “Dr. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal and others versus State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Home), Government of U.P., Lucknow, and others.” The decision underscored the importance of ensuring that custody decisions and proposals for boarding school placement are grounded not only in legal arguments between disputing parents, but primarily in considerations of the child’s psychological capacity to cope with such changes.
In summary, the Allahabad High Court held that a child cannot be compelled to go to a boarding school simply to resolve conflicts arising from the parents’ custody battle without first assessing the child’s psychological readiness for such a change. The child’s best interests must be paramount, and the availability of expert psychological evaluation is essential before considering measures like boarding school placement or altering custodial arrangements. The Court refrained from disturbing the existing custody order in the absence of compelling evidence indicating that the child’s current custodial environment was harmful, and left further determination of the matter to the Family Court with directions that any expert reports should be placed before it for a decision in accordance with law.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.