Allahabad High Court cautioned that children must not become weapons in custody battles, stressing boarding school placement is no easy fix for parental conflict. The bench dismissed cross-appeals, highlighting the need for prior psychological assessment of the child’s welfare.
PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court has issued a critical reminder regarding custody disputes between estranged parents, stating that a child should never be treated as a weapon or collateral damage. The court emphasized that sending a minor to a boarding school is not a straightforward solution to parental conflicts and necessitates a thorough psychological evaluation of the child beforehand.
This insight came from a division bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh, as they dismissed appeals from both parents concerning ongoing custody and visitation disputes involving their seven-year-old son.
The case specifically addressed the father’s request for either a change in custody or an order placing the child in a residential boarding school for what he described as a neutral and holistic upbringing. The couple was married in 2017 and welcomed their son in 2018. Following marital discord, the mother relocated to Lucknow with the child. In 2020, the father allegedly took the child from Lucknow to Dhanbad without the mother’s approval, resulting in criminal proceedings and a habeas corpus petition before the high court.
After prolonged litigation, the Supreme Court restored custody of the child to the mother in January 2022, while granting detailed visitation rights to the father. However, disputes over visitation implementation led to multiple proceedings, including a second habeas corpus petition, contempt actions, and repeated applications to modify visitation arrangements.
In the course of these proceedings, the father contended that the ongoing animosity between the parents was negatively impacting the child’s emotional development. He suggested that admitting the child to a reputable boarding school, which he offered to fully finance, would protect the child from parental conflict and create a neutral space for both parents to interact with him during vacations.
However, the bench rejected this proposal, noting that the child had been living with his mother for nearly four years, attending a good school in Lucknow, and performing well academically and otherwise. The court found no evidence suggesting that the child was in a toxic or harmful environment or that his welfare was compromised under his mother’s custody.
Importantly, the court observed that no expert report or professional psychological evaluation had been presented to support the claim that removing the child from his mother to send him to a boarding school would be in his best interest.
Without such evidence, the bench determined that it could not mandate such a measure merely to simplify the implementation of visitation rights or address parental conflict.
On the custody matter, the court reiterated that the mother’s custody had been previously confirmed in earlier proceedings, including by the Supreme Court, and stated that no urgent circumstances warranted interference at this stage.
It emphasized that custody and visitation orders can always be modified by the competent family court based on evidence. The court also directed the family court to prioritize and swiftly resolve the pending guardianship proceedings, underscoring that the child’s welfare must remain the foremost concern throughout.
In rejecting the appeals, the bench clarified that its decision not to admit the child to a boarding school does not preclude the family court from reviewing the issue in the future if supported by expert testimony.
Case Title: Dr. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal and others vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Home) Govt. of U.P., Lucknow and others
Read Attachment:
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
