The Delhi High Court in the case Vermeet Singh Taneja v. Jasmeet Kaur observed wherein the plea is moved by the father seeking direction to his child’s mother for transfer of the child to the ‘better school.’
The court observed that the welfare of the child is of prime consideration in guardianship cases.
The bench comprising of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora in the case observed and has noted that the child was residing in Pitampura with his mother, and the school suggested by the father was in Dwarka i.e., 20 kms away.
The court stated that any order sought by the appellant shall be to the inconvenience of the minor child who is about 7 years of age, cannot be granted.
An appeal has been filed by the appellant-father wherein assailing the order of the Family Court, whereby an application is moved by him seeking direction to the respondent i.e., the child’s mother to send the child to a school in Dwarka was dismissed.
The Family Court in the case 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 has been noted by the court that the mother of child was working in his current school and the child had the comfort of going and coming with the mother and was under her supervision all the time.
The Family Court in the case stated that 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 appellant submitted before the court that he was ready to arrange private transportation for the child between Pitampura and Dwarka.
On the other hand, it has been contended by the respondent-mother wherein it is stated 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.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case that 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.
Accordingly, the court did not find any reason for interference with the Family Court order.
The counsel, Advocate Preeti Singh, and Advocate Sunklan Porwal appeared for the appellant.
The counsel, Advocate Nikhil Rastogi represented the respondent.