The Allahabad High Court ruled that a child cannot be sent to a boarding school during a custody dispute without first checking the child’s mental and emotional readiness.
The Court stressed that custody battles must not turn children into tools of conflict between parents.
PRAYAGRAJ: The Allahabad High Court has clearly held that a child cannot be forced into a boarding school just because the parents are fighting over custody. The Court said that before passing any such direction, it is compulsory to conduct a proper psychological evaluation of the child to understand whether the child can handle separation from the parent with whom the child has been living.
The Court made it clear that decisions taken during custody disputes must focus only on the child’s well-being and not on the convenience, ego, or strategy of either parent. The Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh examined the long-running custody dispute between the parents of a minor boy and emphasized that children often suffer silently when parents misuse legal processes to gain advantage over each other.
While dealing with the matter, the Court observed:
“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. Sending a child to a boarding school cannot be an answer in black and white. It is necessary to psychologically evaluate the child to assess as to whether it is necessary to remove the child from the custody of his mother and put him in a boarding school. How the child will react is an important aspect to be considered before taking such a decision.”
The facts of the case show that the mother and father were married in 2017 and their son was born in 2018. Due to serious marital disputes, the couple separated and started filing multiple legal cases against each other. The mother shifted from Dhanbad in Jharkhand to Lucknow with the child. According to the mother, the father took the child out for a drive in Lucknow but instead removed him from her custody and took him to Dhanbad without her consent.
Following this, the mother lodged an FIR against the father and also filed a Habeas Corpus petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking custody of the minor child. The Single Judge ordered that custody be handed over to the mother while granting visitation rights to the father.
Later, disputes arose regarding visitation. The father alleged that the mother was obstructing his meetings with the child, leading him to file another Habeas Corpus petition. The Court dismissed this petition, holding that a second habeas corpus petition was not maintainable when the earlier one was still pending. A contempt petition was also filed, but it was eventually dismissed as appeals were already pending before the Court.
During the proceedings, the Court made repeated efforts to reconcile the parents for the sake of the child. Despite counselling, mediation attempts, and even professional psychological involvement, the conflict between the parents continued. The Court had to repeatedly intervene to regulate visitation and ensure that the child was not emotionally harmed by the constant litigation.
While examining the case, the Court recorded an important concern:
“The warring couple has made allegations and counter allegations against each other, which are basically, factual in nature and can be best appreciated after the parties are permitted to lead evidence. However, the dilemma before this Court is how to secure the best interest of the child amidst the marital conflict,”
The Court noted that the child had been living with the mother for most of his life and was studying in a reputed school in Lucknow. There was no material on record to show that the child was living in a toxic or unsafe environment with the mother. Academically and emotionally, the child appeared to be doing well.
The judges observed that if the parents had been living together and constantly fighting in front of the child, a boarding school could have been considered as a temporary protective measure. However, in the present case, the child was settled, stable, and surrounded by a familiar environment.
The Court specifically noted:
“The child is about 7 years of age at present and at this stage where there are no accentuating circumstances on record, which can indicate that the child is living in a toxic household with his mother, in such circumstances, uprooting the child from his mother and permitting the custody of the child to the father may not be in the fitness of things especially when the child is accustomed to a life style, is going to school and has friends and is cocooned in his own ecosystem, which is comfortable for him.”
The Bench also took note of the fact that a guardianship petition filed by the father under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 was already pending before the Family Court. The High Court consciously avoided disturbing the existing custody arrangement, stating that such matters should be decided based on evidence and expert inputs in the appropriate forum.
On the specific issue of sending the child to a boarding school, the Court clearly held that there was no expert opinion or psychological report on record to show that the child was mentally prepared to live away from his mother. The Court refused to take such a drastic step merely to resolve visitation conflicts between parents.
The Court held that the issue of boarding school could be examined by the Family Court in the future, but only if proper expert reports and psychological evaluations were placed on record. Until then, the child’s existing environment should not be disturbed.
Finally, the Court expressed hope that both parents would place the child’s interest above their personal disputes and comply with court-ordered visitation arrangements in a mature and responsible manner.
Explanatory Table – Laws and Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose | How It Appears in This Case |
| Article 226, Constitution of India | Empowers High Courts to issue writs including Habeas Corpus | Used repeatedly by both parents to seek custody and enforcement of visitation |
| Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction | Protects personal liberty, including unlawful detention | Invoked to recover custody of the minor child |
| Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 | Governs appointment and declaration of guardians | Father’s guardianship petition is pending before the Family Court |
| Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Restitution of conjugal rights | Filed by the father during matrimonial disputes |
| Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 | Divorce proceedings | Filed by the mother |
| Parens Patriae Jurisdiction | Court’s duty to act as guardian of minors | Central principle guiding custody, visitation, and schooling decisions |
| Section 498-A IPC | Cruelty by husband or relatives | FIR filed during matrimonial conflict |
| Sections 336 & 506 IPC | Endangering life and criminal intimidation | Part of criminal proceedings between spouses |
| Sections 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act | Penalizes dowry demand and acceptance | Invoked during matrimonial litigation |
| Contempt of Court Act | Enforcement of court orders | Father filed contempt alleging denial of visitation |
| Supreme Court Jurisdiction (SLP) | Supervisory appellate jurisdiction | Multiple SLPs filed; all declined interference |
Case Details
| Particulars | Details |
| Case Title | Dr. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others |
| Connected Case | Master Devansh Agarwal (Detenue) through Mother Smt. Deepti Goel and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others |
| Case Numbers | Special Appeal No. 221 of 2023 and Special Appeal No. 225 of 2023 |
| Court | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench |
| Judgment Reserved On | 15 December 2025 |
| Judgment Delivered On | 21 January 2026 |
| Coram / Bench | Hon’ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice and Hon’ble Jaspreet Singh, Judge |
| Nature of Proceedings | Intra-Court Appeals arising out of Habeas Corpus proceedings |
| Subject Matter | Child custody, visitation rights, proposal to send minor child to boarding school |
| Reporting Status | A.F.R. (Approved for Reporting) |
Counsels Appearing in the Case
- For the Appellants (Father Side)
- Prashant Chandra, Senior Advocate
- Miss Meha Rashmi
- Ashok Kumar Singh
- Anilesh Tewari
- Siddhartha Sinha
- For the Respondents
- C.S.C. (Chief Standing Counsel)
- H.G.S. Parihar, Senior Advocate
- Meenakshi Singh Parihar
- Divyarth Singh Chauhan
- Govind Narayan Shukla
- Sushil Kumar Singh
Key Takeaways
- Courts are finally recognizing that children should not be used as leverage to restrict a father’s role under the guise of welfare.
- Boarding school cannot be forced as a shortcut to neutralize a father’s custody or visitation rights.
- Psychological evaluation is mandatory before separating a child from an actively involved parent, not assumptions or allegations.
- A father’s consistent effort, financial support, and presence cannot be brushed aside merely because custody lies with the mother.
- Repeated litigation and obstruction of visitation silently harm the child, even when dressed as protective parenting.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.