Child Custody | Boarding School Cannot Be Ordered Merely To Resolve Visitation Conflicts: Allahabad High Court

“Sending a child to a boarding school cannot be an answer in black and white... The Court has to ensure that in a legal battle between the conflicting couple, the child is not used as a weapon nor is he victimized.”— In a seminal ruling, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh, refused to transfer the custody of a 7-year-old child from his mother to a boarding school, holding that such a drastic step cannot be taken merely to smooth over visitation difficulties between estranged parents.

The War of Attrition: Child as "Scapegoat"

The Division Bench was hearing intra-court appeals arising out of a bitter matrimonial dispute between two highly qualified professionals—a Doctor (Father) and an Assistant Professor (Mother). The litigation history was described by the Court as "ensconced with bitterness," involving allegations of abduction, multiple Habeas Corpus petitions, and contempt proceedings.

The core controversy in the appeal centered on the Father's plea to modify the custody arrangement. He argued that the Mother was "brainwashing" the child and obstructing visitation rights. Consequently, he proposed that the child be sent to a reputed residential school at his expense to ensure a neutral environment and holistic development, invoking the Court's parens patriae jurisdiction.

“The child has been caught in the cross fire and is a victim of battle between the spouses.”

Rejection of the "Boarding School" Solution

The Court categorically rejected the Father's proposal to shift the minor to a boarding school. The Bench observed that the child, aged about 7 years, had been living with the Mother since infancy (except for a disputed period of separation) and was performing well in his current school in Lucknow.

The Court held that uprooting a child from a stable environment requires compelling evidence, such as expert psychological evaluation indicating that the current custody is toxic. The Bench noted that no such material was placed on record. The Court emphasized that while shared parenting is ideal, it cannot be enforced mechanically in a hostile environment where the child might feel insecure.

“The child is not a commodity or a machine who is to be brought up and raised as per some prescribed formula.”

Custody and Visitation: Restoring the Status Quo

The Division Bench set aside the Single Judge's modification order dated 07.04.2023, which had introduced a complex, season-wise visitation schedule. Instead, the Court restored the original visitation order dated 06.01.2022, finding it to be "robust enough" if strictly adhered to.

The Court clarified that Habeas Corpus proceedings are summary in nature and cannot replace substantive guardianship proceedings. Since a petition under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 was already pending before the Family Court, the High Court declined to alter the custody arrangement at this stage, finding no "emergent circumstances" to disturb the child's life with the Mother.

“Howsoever nobel an act, its implementation will squarely depend on the intent of the person who is required to abide with it.”

Citing landmark Supreme Court precedents including Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan and Nil Ratan Kundu, the Court reiterated that the welfare of the minor is the sole paramount consideration. The financial superiority of the Father was deemed insufficient ground to transfer custody, as the Mother was found to be professionally qualified and capable of caring for the child.

The Court concluded by directing the Family Court to decide the pending guardianship case expeditiously, granting liberty to the parties to lead evidence regarding the boarding school proposal in that substantive forum.

Date of Decision: 21/01/2026