Delhi High Court: In an appeal filed against the order dated 06-11-2023, whereby the application filed by the appellant-father under Section 43(2) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 was dismissed, the Division Bench of V. Kameswar Rao* and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ., opined that it was a settled position of law that for deciding issue of this nature, the child’s welfare was of prime consideration and it was also a conceded position that the respondent-mother was residing in Pitampura and the school at Dwarka was at a distance of 20 kms from Pitampura and the school at Rohini where the minor child was currently studying was much nearer in comparison. Thus, the Court held that any such order sought by the father should be an inconvenience for the seven-year-old minor child and thus, such order could not be granted.
In the instant case, the father submitted that Venkateshwar International School, Dwarka was a much better school in all respects and the said school should be appropriate for the proper welfare and development of the minor child. The father also submitted certain photographs which showed comparison between the facilities available at Venkateshwar International School, Dwarka and the Prince Public School, Rohini. The father also stated that he could provide residence to the respondent and the child at Dwarka, provided the child studied in the above school at Dwarka.
Whereas, the mother submitted that if the father’s intention was to get the child admitted in Venkateshwar International School, Dwarka, the same school had a branch in Rohini and if the father of the child could ensure the admission of the minor in the same school in Rohini, she will agree to transfer the school, to which the father stated that he was not sure that the minor child would get the admission in Rohini branch of the Venkateshwar International School.
The Court opined that it was a settled position of law that the child’s welfare was of prime consideration for deciding issue of this nature and the fact that the mother was residing in Pitampura and the school at Dwarka was at a distance of 20 kms from Pitampura and the school at Rohini where the minor child was currently studying was much nearer than the school at Dwarka was sufficient to reject the appeal.
Thus, the Court held that any such order sought by the father should be an inconvenience for the seven-year-old minor child and thus, such order could not be granted.
[Vermeet Singh Taneja v. Jasmeet Kaur, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7489, decided on 22-11-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: Preeti Singh and Sunklan Porwal, Advocates;
For the Respondent: Nikhil Rastogi, Advocate
