1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.5388­5389 Of 2019

(arising out of SLP(C)Nos.15912­15913 of 2018)

SHEOLI HATI           ... APPELLANT(S) 

VERSUS

SOMNATH DAS        ... RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

ASHOK BHUSHAN,J.

Leave granted.

2.The   appellant   aggrieved   by   the   judgment   dated

26.04.2018 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court

of Jharkhand at Ranchi has come up in these appeals.

The impugned judgment of the High Court was passed in

First Appeal No.59 of 2016 filed by the appellant and

First Appeal No.68 of 2016 filed by the respondent both

challenging  the  order  dated  31.03.2016   passed  by  the

Principal   Judge,   Family   Court,   Jamshedpur   in

Guardianship Case No.11 of 2012 filed by the respondent

under Sections 7 and 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act,

2

1890.

3.The brief facts and circumstances giving rise to

these appeals are:

3.1The appellant and the respondent were married

in the year 2003. There has been matrimonial

dispute   between   the   parties   since   the   year

2006.  A girl child was born to the appellant

and   the   respondent   on   09.04.2007,   named   as

Aditi. The appellant filed complaint against

the   husband   before   various   authorities,

employer of the respondent as well as National

Human   Rights   Commission.   A   petition   for

seeking restitution of conjugal rights under

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was

filed by the respondent at Bengaluru where the

respondent was residing. In the year 2008, the

appellant   lodged   FIR   against   the   respondent

under   Section   498A   of   the   IPC   being   Case

No.204   of   2008.   In   the   year   2008,   the

respondent filed an application for seeking a

3

decree   of   divorce   before   the   Family   Court,

Bengaluru which was registered as Matrimonial

Case No.3358 of 2008.

3.2The respondent filed an application before the

High   Court   of   Jharkhand   at   Ranchi   seeking

anticipatory bail in connection with Kadma PS

Case No.204 of 2008 in which case parties were

referred   to   mediation   and   conciliation   to

amicably resolve their issues. On 11.09.2009,

the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru

granted   ex   parte   decree   of   divorce   dated

11.09.2009.   During   the   pendency   of   the

Anticipatory Bail Application being No.518 of

2009, the parties amicably settled all their

disputes   before   Jharkhand   Legal   Services

Authority.   A   Settlement   dated   19.12.2009

between   the   parties   was   communicated   to   the

High   Court.   As   per   the   terms   of   the

settlement,   the   respondent   agreed   to   pay   an

amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ as permanent alimony

4

to   the   appellant.   Further,   the   respondent

agreed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/­ in

the   name   of   Aditi   for   her   all   time

maintenance. The  appellant further agreed not

to   challenge   ex   parte   divorce   decree.   The

appellant also agreed to allow the respondent

to meet their child once in every two months

starting   from   January,   2010.   The   High   Court

disposed   of   the   matter   in   terms   of   the

settlement.

3.3The   respondent   alleging   obstruction   by   the

appellant   in   his   visiting   rights   filed   an

application   seeking   custody   of   the   child,

Aditi under Sections 7 and 12 of the Guardian

and   Wards   Act,   1890   at   Bengaluru.   The   said

proceedings under Guardian and Wards Act were

transferred   to   Family   Court   at   Jamshedpur

under   order   of   this   Court   dated   27.03.2012.

The   appellant   filed   written   statement   in

Guardianship   Case   No.11   of   2012.   The

5

respondent   made   an   amendment   application

before   the   Family   Court,   Jamshedpur   praying

for an alternative relief for addition of a

prayer   in   his   application   in   Guardianship

Case,   i.e.,   for   directing   the   child   to   be

admitted   in   any   reputed   residential/boarding

school   in   India   at   the   expenses   of   the

respondent,   which   amendment   application   was

allowed   by   an   order   dated   16.05.2013.   The

Principal Judge, Family Court by order dated

31.03.2016   decided   the     Guardianship   Case

No.11 of 2012. It is to be noted that in the

Guardianship   proceedings   the   respondent   has

given up his claim of the custody of child and

confined his case to alternative prayer, i.e.,

direction   to   admit   the   child   in   a   boarding

school.   The   Family   Court,   Jamshedpur   in

paragraph 41 of the judgment directed:

"41.  Thus,   in   view   of   the

discussions   made   above,   I   come   to

the   conclusion   that   minor   daughter

of   the   petitioner   and   respondent

Aditi   Bishaskha   Das   shall   continue

6

in   the   care,   custody   and

guardianship of her mother till she

reaches   the   age   of   11   years   and

shall   continue   to   pursue   her

education from Jamshedpur along with

her mother. However, the petitioner

shall   have   the   visitation   right   as

is   continuing   since   before   i.e.

during   the   pendency   of   the   case.

However,   the   petitioner   shall   be

entitled to the custody of the child

for   half   of   each   vacation   of   the

school   where   Aditi   is   or   shall   be

studying and for the first half of

vacation Aditi shall be in the care

and   custody   of   her   father   i.e.

petitioner   and for the second half

of the vacation she shall be under

the care and custody of her mother.

The vacations referred to above are

the   Summer   and   Winter   vacations   in

every   school.   Further,   Aditi   upon

attaining the age of 12 years i.e.

for   the   academic   session   2019­2020

she   shall   be   sent   to   a   boarding

school of repute where she qualifies

and   is   able   to   get   admission.   The

entire cost of such Boarding School

shall be borne by the petitioner and

once   Aditi   gets   into   the   Boading

School   then   the   respondent   shall

have the right to visit her daughter

as permitted by the School calendar

but   at   the   cost   of   the   petitioner

and   the   petitioner   shall   pay   such

cost   which   shall   include   the

travelling   air­fare   and   other

expenses   in   advance.   Issue   No.V   is

decided accordingly. The custody in

course of vacation shall continue as

before.”

7

3.4The   Family   Court   directed   that   Aditi   shall

continue   in   the   custody   and   guardianship   of

her   mother   till   she   reaches   the   age   of   11

years   and   continue   to   pursue   her   education

from   Jamshedpur.   The   respondent   was   allowed

visitation right and also allowed custody of

the   child   for   half   of   each   vacation   of   the

school. First half of the vacation be in the

care and custody of her father and second half

be in the custody of the mother. The Family

Court further directed that for the academic

session   2019­2020   she   shall   be   sent   to   a

boarding school of repute where she qualifies

and is able to get admission.

3.5Aggrieved by the judgment of the Family Court

both   the   parties   have   filed   appeals   in   the

High Court. The appellant filed First Appeal

No.59 of 2016 and the respondent filed First

Appeal   No.68   of   2016.   The   High   Court

interacted   with   the   child   on   several

8

occasions.   The   High   Court   in   the   aforesaid

appeals   passed   an   order   dated   17.11.2016

proposing to the parties that the minor child

be   admitted   in   Sacred   Heart   Convent   School,

Jamshedpur   which   is   a   very   good   school   for

girls in Jamshedpur. On 28.11.2016, the High

Court   directed   that   Aditi   be   admitted   in

Sacred Heart Convent School, Jamshedpur. The

High Court also increased the visiting hours

of   the   respondent   and   also   permitted   the

respondent   to   get   the   child   registered   for

admission   in   La   Martiniere   Girls   School,

Kolkata. Against the order dated 28.11.2016,

the   appellant   filed   SLP(C)Nos.37915­37916   of

2016   which   were   dismissed   by   this   Court   by

order   dated   23.12.2016.   By   the   subsequent

order   dated   26.04.2018   which   is   impugned   in

the present appeals, the High Court directed

the   child   to   be   admitted   in   Good   Shepherd

International School, Ooty in Class IV which

is   a   residential   institution   affiliated   to

9

ICSE   for   the   Session   2018­2019,   which

commenced from 21.07.2018. These appeals were

taken   by   this   Court   on   10.07.2018.   In   its

order dated 10.07.2018 following observations

were made by this Court:

"After   hearing   the   learned

counsel for the parties yesterday as

well as today, we are of the opinion

that   there   is   no   need   to   stay   the

directions of the High Court in the

impugned   order   whereby   the   High

Court   has   directed   that   the   child

Aditi   Bisakha   Das   be   admitted   in

Good   Shephard   International   School,

Ooty in Class V where the respondent

has   already   secured   admission   for

her.   This   arrangement,   as   per   the

High Court's order, is made for the

Academic Year 2018­19. We also find

that the High Court has passed this

order after weighing and discussing

all the alternatives and 2 pros and

cons   of   the   matter   and   has   formed

its  opinion  that   it  is   one   of   the

most suitable solutions. 

We feel that once such an order

is   given   on   objective

considerations,   it   is   better   that

the   child   is   admitted   in   the   said

School in the current academic year

in order to find out as to how she

is able to cope up with and studies

in the said School at Ooty and what

kind of progress she is able to make

on   shifting   her   from   the   present

10

atmosphere to a boarding School.”

3.6 In pursuance of the order of the High Court

dated 26.04.2018, ultimately, the child, Aditi

was   admitted   in   Good   Shephard   International

School,   Ooty   reluctantly   by   the   appellant.

With   regard   to   the   visiting   rights   of   the

respondent orders were passed for the winter

vacation   by   this   Court   on   12.12.2018.   After

spending   second   half   of   the   winter   vacation

with father the child went to Jamshedpur to

attend birthday of her mother on 13.01.2019.

After attending birthday she was to catch a

flight for Bengaluru from Ranchi. Father along

with   an   Advocate   was   to   take   the   child.   On

14.01.2019 at the Airport child complained to

the CISF personnel that she did not want to go

along   with   father   to   Bengaluru.   The   CISF

officer informed the concerned Police Station

and the lady Police personnel interacted with

the   child.   Although   the   appellant   and   her

11

father were telephonically informed but they

did not come to take the child and the child

was ultimately lodged in a shelter home. The

Child   Welfare   Committee,   Ranchi   (Jharkhand)

also   interacted   with   the   child.   This   Court

vide   order   dated   21.01.2019   directed

following:

“The   child   being   student   in   a

good   school   and   her   session   coming

to   close,   we   are   of  the  view   that

first thing to be done is to direct

the Child Welfare Committee to send

the   child   to   the   school.

Respondent/father   will   bear   all

expenses for traveling of the child

along with one woman companion which

may be deputed by the Child Welfare

Committee   to   take   the   child   and

handover the child to the Principal

of the School. This order shall be

complied   by   the   Child   Welfare

Committee within three days from the

date   of   production   of   this   order.

All other issues between the parties

shall be taken care subsequently. We

further   direct   that   report   of   the

Child Welfare Committee be submitted

in a sealed cover before this Court.

The   Principal   of   the   school   also

submit   an   interim   report   of   the

academic   session   in   a   sealed   cover

before   this   Court.   Reports   be

submitted   within   two   weeks.   The

school   may   also   send   detail   report

by the end of this academic session.

12

Accordingly, I.A. is disposed of. 

List the matters after four weeks.” 

3.7After   aforesaid   order   dated   21.01.2019,   the

child   was   handed   over   to   the   School   to

complete her session. Further, on 21.02.2019,

the   report   from   Child   Welfare   Committee,

Ranchi,   Jharkhand   and   on   29.01.2019   and

02.02.2019   report   from   Good   Shepherd

International School, Ooty were received. By

order dated 03.05.2019 on the request of the

mother she was permitted to have the custody

of the child during the entire vacation with

effect from 22.05.2019. Thereafter, the matter

was heard on 01.07.2019.

4.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

child is not doing well at Good Shepherd International

School, Ooty and she has suffered medical issues also.

The appellant submits that proper medical care was not

13

taken by the School. Learned counsel submits that the

appellant   has   always   contended   that   child   shall   be

allowed to get her education at Jamshedpur where the

mother is residing. An I.A.No.74433 of 2019 has been

filed by the appellant where the second prayer is that

Aditi  to  be admitted  in some  reputed  school for the

Academic   Session   2019­2020   in   Jamshedpur   or

alternatively     Aditi   be   admitted   in   some   boarding

school   near   Jamshedpur.   In   the   application,   the

appellant has referred to La­Martiniere Girls School,

Kolkata and Loreto Convent Entally, Kolkata.

5.Learned counsel for the appellant has also referred

to   medical   prescription   dated   20.05.2019   of   one   Dr.

Devi Prasad Rao, Child Specialist, Hospital Road, Ooty

and one further prescription dated 07.06.2019 of Aditi

from Zila Mansik Swasthaya Karyakaram, Jamshedpur, East

Singhbhoom, Jharkhand.

6.Learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   refuting   the

submissions of the counsel for the appellant contends

14

that child Aditi has done very well in the institution,

Good   Shepherd   International   School,   Ooty.   In   reply

filed by the respondent, the respondent has referred to

various progress reports and certificates issued by the

Good   Shepherd   International   School   of   the   child   for

Academic   Session   2018­2019.   Learned   counsel   submits

that the child has shown over all development and her

participation   in   all   the   activities   inside   the

classroom and outside, there is no complaint of health

issues.   She   participated   in   several   competitions   and

got prizes and certificates. The weight and height has

specially   increased.   In   the   reply   affidavit,   learned

counsel  has  referred  to  co­curricular  report   card  of

the   child.   In   her   progress   report,   she   has   been

promoted to Class VI. It is submitted that it is the

appellant,   who  has   always  been   creating  hindrance  in

normal development of the child. She has always been

from   day   one   poisoning   the   child   against   the

respondent. The child has always been tutored to make

complaint against the respondent. The child is treated

in a manner by the appellant so as to alienate her from

15

father. The child was in neutral environment and has

done well in the school in all fields which instead of

being   appreciated   by   the   appellant,   she   still   wants

that   child   be   taken   out   from   the   School   for   which

several tricks have been played by the appellant.

7.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the records.

8.Before we proceed to enter into the submissions of

the parties, it is useful to refer to the order passed

by the High Court on 26.04.2018, which is impugned in

the   present   appeals.   As   noted   above,   the   child   was

initially studying in the institution, where appellant

is   a   teacher,   i.e.,   Motilal   Nehru   Public   School,

Jamshedpur.   Now,   pursuant   to   the   orders   of   the   High

Court, the child was admitted for the Academic Session

2017­2018 in  Sacred Heart Convent School, Jamshedpur.

The High Court has noticed the report of Sacred Heart

Convent School, Jamshedpur, which was received from the

School on 21.03.2018. The report has been extracted by

16

the   High   Court   in   paragraph   No.16   of   the   judgment,

which is to the following effect:

"”Sub:­School Performance Report of Aditi  

   Bishakaha Das.

Sir,

With reference to CASE No.­Cont.(Cr.)­08/2017

dated   4600/17.03.2018,   Aditi   Bishakaha   Das,

who is presently studying is Std. V, having

Admission No.16510, is trying her best to come

up to the average level.

In the year 2017 when Aditi was admitted in

Sacred   Heard   Convent   School   she   was   below

average in her studies. Whenever her mother

was called by the class teacher her heath was

not permitting to visit the class teacher and

the   co­ordinator   of   the   Primary   School.   It

seems home atmosphere is not contucive for the

child to perform well in her studies.

The child is in the school only for six hours

and the rest of the time the child is at home.

Aditi   is   an   intelligent   girl.   Parents   co­

operation is very important. It is up to the

parents to help the child and to co­operate

with   the   school   authorities.   Environment   is

very important for the child's performance and

to do well in her studies. It is up to the

parents   to   decide   her   further.   Residential

school might held her to do well in her future

studies.

Sister Mridula Ac.

Principal,

Sacred Heard Convent School, Jamshedpur.” 

17

9.Another   factor   which   has   been   taken   into

consideration by the High Court is the report of the

District Probation Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur

which   was   called   for   by   the   Court.   By   letter   dated

10.04.2018,   the   District   Officer,   Jamshedpur   has

submitted that report regarding well being of the child

Aditi. in paragraph No. 5 with regard to Educational

condition, following was opined:

"5. Educational condition:­ Now Aditi is in

Std.5 in Sacred Heart School in Jamshedpur.

Acceding to her School progress report card,

she   is   an   average   student   but   talking   with

Aditi, this investigator founded that she is

an intelligent girl. In the better educational

atmosphere and without any type of stress or

tension she will do better for her future.”

10.The High Court in paragraph 21 ultimately said:

"21.Considered thus, in the totality of the

facts and circumstances, we are inclined to

accede to the request of the father to allow

the child to be admitted to a reputed school

i.e. Good Shepherd International School, Ooty

in Class­V which is affiliated to ICSE. The

session 2018­19 commences from 21.07.2018. In

that way, the girl would not lose any valuable

period   of   the   session   as   it   is   yet   to

commence. As informed by the father, aptitude

test   and   personal   interview   is   to   be   held

before 10.05.2018. Good Shepherd International

18

School,   Ooty   as   its   brochure   shows   was

established in 1977 and has the facilities of

best teaching and learning practices, services

and   opportunities   provided   by   a   team   of

committed mentors and facilitators. It has a

knowledge village, a reputed Finishing Schools

for   girls   along   with   9­hole   golf   course,

hospital,   bank,   vegetable   farms,   dairy   and

poultry.   It   is   spread   over   150   acres   of

verdant land in Nilgiris in Tamil Nadu, India.

Avowedly, it has a state of art infrastructure

for academic   and boarding talent to deliver

world class education. There are houses for

the   students   from   Class   VI   to   XII.   The

Institution   is   a   Member   of   the   Council   of

International   Schools,   a   benchmark   of   world

class school education. It has a distinguished

faculty who are exposed to global developments

and reside within the Global Village to devote

complete time to make the learning experience

for the students an enriching one.”

11.The order impugned indicates that the High Court

has not finally decided both the appeals filed against

the   order   dated   31.03.2016   of   the   Family   Court.   The

matter  has  been kept  pending  by the High  Court. The

High Court had directed that after child is admitted in

the school the matter should again be posted before the

High Court to file compliance report.

12.As noted above, the application which was filed by

the   respondent   before   the   Family   Court   under   the

19

Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 was confined only to the

consideration of the issue as to whether child Aditi

should be directed to be admitted in a boarding school.

The respondent has given up his claim of custody of the

child and has only pressed his prayer of sending the

child to the boarding school.

13.It   is   also   relevant   to   note   that   it   is   the

respondent, who is bearing all expenses of the child in

the boarding school at Ooty, which are more than Rs.10

lakhs p.a.   In addition to the above expenses of the

school, the respondent also offered to bear expenses of

flight charges and stay of the appellant when she visit

the child at Ooty from Jamshedpur.   From the material

on the record, we are satisfied that the respondent's

intention   has   always   been   that   the   child   should   get

best education at a neutral environment, which may help

in   developing   her   personality.     It   is   also   to   be

noticed   that   the   appellant   has   right   from   beginning

opposing the prayer of the respondent to send the child

in the boarding school and tried to find fault with the

20

school at Ooty. In the circumstance in which the child

is   there,   the   Court   has   to   take   extra   caution   and

precaution to ensure that the child is kept away from

negative influences. 

14.As noted above, even the Family Court has directed

for   admitting   the   child   in   boarding   school   but   from

Academic   Session   2019­2020.   The   High   Court   initially

directed that the child to be admitted in  Sacred Heart

Convent School, Jamshedpur and after receiving a report

from   the   said   School,   the   High   Court   directed   for

admission   of   Aditi   in     Good   Shepherd   International

School, Ooty for the Academic Session 2018­2019, which

order is under challenge in these appeals.

15.As noted above, we in our order dated 10.07.2018

declined to stay the directions of the High Court for

admission   of   Aditi   in   Good   Shepherd   International

School, Ooty in Class V. The order passed by the High

Court,   impugned,   in   these   appeals,   has   been   given

effect to and both the appeals being still pending in

21

the High Court awaiting final decision, we are of the

view that the High Court may finally decide the appeals

after   hearing   the   parties.   Order   dated   26.04.2018

having been given effect to, we see no justification in

interfering   with   this   order   at   this   stage.   Learned

counsel for the parties submitted that this Court may

itself decide all the issues finally but the appeals

against the order of the Family Court being awaiting

the final decision of the High Court. it is appropriate

that   the   High   Court   may   be   requested   to   decide   the

appeals finally.

16.Before   we   close,   few   observations   on   the   issues

which   have   arisen   before   us   need   to   be   made.   The

present   is   a   case,   where   limited   issue   has   arisen

regarding   giving   education   to   the   child   in   boarding

school or to permit the status quo regarding education

of the child as was on the date when the Family Court

passed order dated 31.03.2016. When the child has to

go in the environment, where there is marital discord

between her parents affecting the peace of mind of all

22

including   the   parents   and   children,   child   suffers

physical and mental distress. The ill consequences of

the discord between mother and father effect the child

in her normal upbringing and is a negative factor on

child's personality and upbringing. This Court in  Vivek

Singh vs. Romani Singh, (2017) 3 SCC 231,  has discussed

the term “Parental Alienation Syndrome”.  In paragraph

No.18 of the judgment, following was observed:­

“18.   ….......................Psychologists

term   it   as   “The   Parental   Alienation

Syndrome”. It has at least two psychological

destructive effects: 

(i) First, it puts the child squarely in the

middle   of   a   contest   of   loyalty,   a

contest   which   cannot   possibly   be   won.

The child is asked to choose who is the

preferred parent. No matter whatever is

the choice, the child is very likely to

end   up   feeling   painfully   guilty   and

confused.   This   is   because   in   the

overwhelming majority of cases, what the

child wants and needs is to continue a

relationship   with   each   parent,   as

independent   as   possible   from   their   own

conflicts.

(ii) Second, the child is required to make a

shift   in   assessing   reality.   One   parent

is presented as being totally to blame

for all problems, and as someone who is

devoid of any positive characteristics.

Both   of   these   assertions   represent   one

parent's distortions of reality. 

23

17.In   the   above   case   also   there   was   bitter   fight

between father and mother. The Family Court has allowed

the custody of the minor girl child to the father by

dismissing   the   petition   of   the   respondent­mother   for

custody.   The   High   Court   on   appeal   decided   the

entitlement of the custody of the child to the mother.

Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, father had

filed   the   appeal   in   which   backgrounds   the   above

observations were made by this Court. The ill effect on

child, due to discord between the parents with negative

feeling  against  each  other  has   natural  effect,   which

hinders the child's normal development.

18.It  is well  settled  that  while taking  a  decision

regarding   custody   or   other   issues   pertaining   to   a

child,   welfare   of   the   child   is   of   paramount

consideration. This Court in  Gaurav Nagpal vs. Sumedha

Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42,   had occasion to consider the

parameters   while   determining   the   issues   of   child

24

custody   and   visitation   rights,   entire   law   on   the

subject  was  reviewed.  This  Court  referred  to  English

Law, American Law, the statutory provisions of Guardian

and Wards Act, 1890 and provisions of Hindu Minority

and   Guardianship   Act,   1956,   this   Court   laid   down

following in paragraph Nos. 43, 44, 45, 46 and 51:

“43. The principles in relation to the custody

of   a   minor   child   are   well   settled.   In

determining the question as to who should be

given custody of a minor child, the paramount

consideration is the “welfare of the child”

and not rights of the parents under a statute

for the time being in force. 

44. The aforesaid statutory provisions came up

for consideration before Courts in India in

several cases. Let us deal with few decisions

wherein the courts have applied the principles

relating to grant of custody of minor children

by   taking   into   account   their   interest   and

well­being as paramount consideration. 

45.  In Saraswathibai Shripad Ved v. Shripad

Vasanji Ved, ILR 1941 Bom 455 : AIR 1941 Bom

103; the High Court of Bombay stated;

“....It is not the welfare of the father,

nor the welfare of the mother, that is the

paramount consideration for the Court. It

is   the   welfare   of   the   minor   and   of   the

minor   alone   which   is   the   paramount

consideration.....” 

   (emphasis supplied) 

46. In Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal,

(1973) 1 SCC 840, this Court held that object

25

and   purpose   of   the   1890   Act   is   not   merely

physical   custody   of   the   minor   but   due

protection   of   the   rights   of   ward’s   health,

maintenance and education. The power and duty

of the Court under the Act is the welfare of

minor. In considering the question of welfare

of minor, due regard has of course to be given

to the right of the father as natural guardian

but   if   the   custody   of   the   father   cannot

promote the welfare of the children, he may be

refused such guardianship.

51. The word “welfare” used in Section 13 of

the Act has to be construed literally and must

be taken in its widest sense. The moral and

ethical welfare of the child must also weigh

with the Court as well as its physical well­

being. Though the provisions of the special

statutes   which   govern   the   rights   of   the

parents   or   guardians   may   be   taken   into

consideration,   there   is   nothing   which   can

stand in the way of the Court exercising its

parens   patriae  jurisdiction   arising   in   such

cases. ”

19.Every   child   has   right   to   proper   health   and

education and it is the primary duty of the parents to

ensure that child gets proper education. The Courts in

exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction have to decide

such delicate question. It has to consider the welfare

of   the   child   as   of   paramount   importance   taking   into

consideration other aspects of the matter including the

rights of parents also. In reference to custody of a

26

minor, this Court had elaborated certain principles in

Thrity Hoshie Dolikuka vs. Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka,

(1982)   2   SCC   544,  where   this   Court   again   reiterated

that welfare of the child is of paramount importance.

In paragraph No.17, following was laid down:

“17. The principles of law in relation to the

custody   of   a   minor   appear   to   be   well­

established.   It   is   well­settled   that   any

matter   concerning   a   minor,   has   to   be

considered and decided only from the point of

view of the welfare and interest of the minor.

In dealing with a matter concerning a minor,

the Court has a special responsibility and it

is   the   duty   of   the   Court   to   consider   the

welfare   of   the   minor   and   to   protect   the

minor's interest. In considering the question

of custody of a minor, the Court has to be

guided   by   the   only   consideration   of   the

welfare of the minor.”

20.In the above case, the issue of minor girl came for

consideration  in   the  context   of  custody.   The  mother,

who   was   school   teacher   wanted   to   send   the   child   to

boarding school, which was opposed by the father, who

wanted to have custody of the minor girl. It is to be

noted   that   in   the   said   case   the   minor   girl   has

expressed her wish not to go to boarding school. This

Court held that in embittered relationship between the

27

parents   and   the   attempt   of   one   spouse   poisoning   the

mind   of   the   child   against   the   other   spouse   has

disastrous effect. In paragraph Nos. 32 to 35 following

was laid down:

“32.  The   effect   on   the   little   girl   of   the

embittered   relationship   between   her   parents

and the attempt of the father to poison the

mind of the daughter against her mother and to

alienate her from the mother has been simply

disastrous. The intelligent and sensible girl,

distressed   at   the   acrimony   between   her

parents,   who   wanted   to   spend   her   time   with

each of her parents as she is deeply attached

to   both,   as   recorded   by   Lentin,   J.   in   his

order dated June 28, 1979, was on the verge of

near   nervous   break­down   as   noted   by   the

Division Bench in its judgment dated July 31,

1981.   The   various   orders   passed   in   between

which we have set out at length also, indicate

what great mental strain and agony the little

girl had suffered because of the acrimonious

dispute   between   her   parents.   During   this

period of two years, the girl had been under

home influence, as she had been staying with

her   quarrelling   parents   in   terms   of   the

various orders of the High Court. The little

girl   also   had   been   compelled   to   make   her

appearances in Court from time to time. The

facts and circumstances clearly establish that

the effect of home influence on the minor in

the present case has been to reduce a bright,

happy   and   sensible   child   to   a   state   of

complete   misery;   and,   the   extreme

psychological strain on the sensible mind of

the   little   girl   has   caused   almost   a   near

nervous breakdown. When the atmosphere in a

house, vitiated and rendered surcharged with

28

tension   as   a   result   of   bitter   squabbles

between   husband   and   wife   causes   misery   and

unhappiness to a child, who has to live in

constant psychological strain in such a broken

home   in   view   of   the   bitter   relationship

between her parents for each of whom she has

great affection, the healthy and normal growth

of   the   child   is   bound   to   be   seriously

affected. In the interest and for the welfare

of   the   child   in   such   a   case,   the   child   is

necessarily to be removed from such unhealthy

environment of a broken home surcharged with

tension. In such a case, the proper and best

way of serving the interest and welfare of the

child will be to remove the child from such

atmosphere of acrimony and tension and to put

the   child   in   a   place   where   the   embittered

relationship   between   her   parents   does   not

easily and constantly effect her tender mind.

33.In   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the

present case the best way to serve the welfare

and interest of the child will be to remove

the   child   from   the   unhealthy   atmosphere   at

home which has caused a very great strain on

her   nerves   and   has   certainly   affected   her

healthy growth, to a place where she can live

a normal healthy life and will have a good

opportunity   of   proper   education   and   healthy

growth.   We   note   with   satisfaction   that   the

view that we have taken is fully supported by

the report of the Social Welfare Expert. The

report of the Social Welfare Expert, though

not   binding   on   the   Court   is   entitled   to

weighty   consideration.   In   the   instant   case,

the Expert has made a very careful study of

the   entire   matter   and   has   given   a   well

­reasoned report.

34.Pursuant   to   the   order   passed   by   the

Division Bench of the Bombay High Court the

mother   got   the   child   admitted   into   Kimmins

29

Boarding School at Panchgani. By an interim

order   passed   by   this   Court   in   the   stay

application   in   this   appeal,   the   child   was

directed   to   continue   her   stay   in   the   said

Boarding   institution.   By   the   interim   order

passed by us on the conclusion of the hearing

we   directed   that   the   child   should   continue

her study in the Boarding School.

35.On a consideration of all the facts and

circumstances   of   this   case   and   bearing   in

mind   the   paramount   consideration   of   the

welfare of the child, we are of the opinion

that the child's interest and welfare will be

best   served   by   removing   her   from   the

influence of home life and by directing that

she should continue to remain in the Boarding

School.   It   is   not   in   dispute   that   Kimmins

Boarding   School   at   Panchgani   to   which   the

child   has   been   admitted   is   a   good

institution.”

21.In   the   above   case,   the   child   was   allowed   to

continue   in   the   boarding   school.   We   notice   one   more

decision   of   this   Court   in  Nutan   Gautam   vs.   Prakash

Gautam, (2019) 4 SCC 734,  which was a case where appeal

was filed by mother of a child against the order of the

High Court passed in First Appeal. While decreeing the

divorce   petition   of   the   husband   ex   parte   the   trial

court   had   directed   the   son,   the   minor   boy,   to   be

admitted in a boarding school at New Delhi. Ex parte

30

order passed by the trial court was challenged by the

mother   in   the   High   Court,   which   matter   was   pending

before the High Court. The High Court by interim order

had permitted the father to take the boy to boarding

school. The said interim order was challenged in this

Court. This Court interacted with the boy and took the

view that in the facts of the case, the child should

not be compelled to go to boarding school. This Court

allowed   the   child   to   continue   his   studies   at   Global

International   School,   Shahjahanpur,   where   he   was

earlier studying in the interest of the child. Every

case   where   issue   pertaining   to   custody   of   child   and

education is decided   depends upon the facts of each

case. No hard and fixed formula can be found out which

can be applied to each and every case. Each case has to

be examined in its own facts. We may again refer to the

judgment in Thrity Hoshie Dolikuka (supra),   where also

this Court noticed that child has expressed his wishes

not to go to boarding school. This Court in the said

case took the view that the minor is not fit to form an

intelligent   preference,   which   may   be   taken   into

31

consideration   in   deciding   her   welfare.   In   paragraph

No.26, following was laid down:

“26.In   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   this

case we are however, not inclined to interview

the minor daughter, as we are satisfied in the

present case that the minor is not fit to form

an intelligent preference which may be taken

into consideration in deciding her welfare. We

have earlier set out in extenso the various

orders passed by the various learned Judges of

the Bombay High Court after interviewing the

minor   and   the   learned   Judges   have   recorded

their   impressions   in   their   judgments   and

orders.   The   impressions   as   recorded   by   the

learned Judges of the Bombay High Court, go to

indicate   that   the   minor   has   expressed

different kinds of wishes at different times

under   different   conditions.   It   also   appears

from the report of the Social Welfare Expert

that   these   interviews   cast   a   gloom   on   the

sensitive mind of the tender girl and caused a

lot   of   strain   and   depression   on   her.   Torn

between her love for both her parents and the

acrimonious dispute between them resulting in

the minor being dragged from court to court,

we can well appreciate that the sensitive mind

of   the   minor   girl   is   bound   to   be   sadly

affected. Though the girl is quite bright and

intelligent as recorded by the learned Judges

of the Bombay High Court in their orders after

their interviews with the girl who is of a

tender age and is placed in a very delicate

and   embarrasing   situation   because   of   the

unfortunate   relationship   and   litigation

between her parents for both of whom she has

great   deal   of   affection,   she   is   not   in   a

position to express any intelligent preference

which will be conducive to her interest and

welfare. Mature thinking is indeed necessary

in such a situation to decide as to what will

32

enure to her benefit and welfare. Any child

who is placed in such an unfortunate position,

can   hardly   have   the   capacity   to   express   an

intelligent preference which may require the

Court's consideration to decide what should be

the   course   to   be   adopted   for   the   child's

welfare. The letters addressed by the daughter

to her mother from Panchgani and also a letter

addressed by her to her aunt (father's sister)

also   go   to   show   that   the   minor   cannot

understand her own mind properly and cannot

form any firm desire. We feel that sending for

the minor and interviewing her in the present

case   will   not   only   not   serve   any   useful

purpose but will have the effect of creating

further depression and demoralisation in her

mind.”

22.We,   thus,   are   of   the   view   that   what   is   in   the

interest   of   the   child   depends   on   the   facts   and

circumstances of each case and has to be decided on its

own   merits   without   adhering   to   any   fixed   formula   or

rule. The appeals being pending before the High Court,

we   are   of   the   view   that   while   deciding   the   appeals

finally, High Court should also take into consideration

subsequent materials which may be brought before it by

the parties including the progress report of the child

from  Good Shepherd International School, Ooty. Learned

counsel   has   also   raised   certain   medical   issues

pertaining to the child. It is also open for the High

33

Court   to   take   decision   on   the   said   issues   and   if

necessary to obtain medical reports as may be required.

In so far as interacting with the child, the High Court

during   hearing  of  the  appeals  had  already  interacted

with the child on many occasions and it is for the High

Court   to   take   a   decision   with   regard   to   interacting

with the child.

23.  The reports received from Child Welfare Committee,

Jharkhand and Good Shepherd International School, Ooty

by this Court on 29.01.2019 and 02.02.2019 respectively

be   remitted   to   the   High   Court   for   consideration   in

sealed   cover.     After   we   closed   the   hearing   on

01.07.2019,   another   report   dated   08.07.2019   has   been

received from Good Shepherd International School, Ooty

in sealed cover which has not been opened.  Let all the

above reports in a sealed cover be transmitted to the

Jharkhand   High   Court   by   a   special   Messenger,   to   be

considered in the pending first appeals.

24.In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find

34

any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment

of   the   High   Court.   The   High   Court   is   requested   to

decide   First   Appeal   No.59   of   2016   and   First   Appeal

No.68 of 2016 after hearing the parties keeping in view

the   observations   as   made   above.   The   appeals   are

disposed of accordingly.

..........................J.

    ( ASHOK BHUSHAN )

..........................J.

NEW DELHI, ( NAVIN SINHA )

JULY 11, 2019.