Supreme Court Upholds Child’s Boarding School Admission in Custody Dispute: Sheoli Hati vs. Somnath Das (2019)

Date of the Judgment: July 11, 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 710

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., Navin Sinha, J.

Can a court order a child to attend boarding school against the wishes of one parent? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a long-standing dispute between a divorced couple over their daughter’s education. The court had to balance the welfare of the child with the parents’ conflicting desires, ultimately upholding the decision to send the child to a boarding school. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Navin Sinha.

Case Background

The appellant, Sheoli Hati, and the respondent, Somnath Das, were married in 2003. Their marriage faced difficulties since 2006. They have a daughter, Aditi, born on April 9, 2007. The couple’s disputes led to several legal actions, including a complaint by the appellant against the respondent, a petition for restitution of conjugal rights by the respondent, and a divorce decree granted to the respondent in 2009. A settlement was reached in 2009, where the respondent agreed to pay alimony and deposit money for Aditi’s maintenance. However, disputes continued over visitation rights, leading the respondent to seek custody of Aditi under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. The respondent later amended his application seeking an alternative relief for the child to be admitted to a boarding school.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The respondent initially filed a case seeking custody of the child under Sections 7 and 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, which was later transferred to the Family Court in Jamshedpur. The Family Court allowed the respondent’s amendment application for an alternative relief seeking the child’s admission to a boarding school. The Family Court directed that Aditi remain with her mother until age 11, with visitation rights for the father and that she be sent to a boarding school from the academic session 2019-2020. Both parties appealed to the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. The High Court initially proposed admitting Aditi to Sacred Heart Convent School, Jamshedpur, and later directed her admission to Good Shepherd International School, Ooty. The appellant’s challenge to the High Court’s order was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The High Court’s final order directed the child to be admitted to Good Shepherd International School, Ooty, for the 2018-2019 session, which is the subject of the current appeals.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, specifically Sections 7 and 12. Section 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, deals with the power of the court to appoint a guardian. Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, allows the court to make interim orders for the protection of the person or property of the minor. The court’s power under this Act is guided by the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration. The Supreme Court also considered the principles laid down in previous judgments regarding the welfare of the child.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that Aditi was not doing well at Good Shepherd International School, Ooty, and had suffered medical issues. They contended that the school did not provide proper medical care.
• The appellant maintained that Aditi should continue her education in Jamshedpur, where her mother resides.
• The appellant filed an application requesting Aditi to be admitted to a reputed school in Jamshedpur or a boarding school near Jamshedpur, citing La Martiniere Girls School, Kolkata, and Loreto Convent Entally, Kolkata, as alternatives.
• The appellant referred to medical prescriptions dated May 20, 2019, and June 7, 2019, to support her claims about Aditi’s health issues.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent refuted the appellant’s claims, asserting that Aditi had performed well at Good Shepherd International School, Ooty.
• The respondent presented progress reports and certificates from the school, highlighting Aditi’s overall development, participation in activities, and improved health.
• The respondent argued that the appellant had been creating hindrances in Aditi’s normal development and poisoning her against the respondent.
• The respondent emphasized that Aditi had thrived in a neutral environment and that the appellant was attempting to remove her from the school through various means.
• The respondent highlighted that he was bearing all expenses of the child in the boarding school at Ooty, which are more than Rs.10 lakhs p.a. He also offered to bear expenses of flight charges and stay of the appellant when she visits the child at Ooty from Jamshedpur.
• The respondent argued that his intention has always been that the child should get best education at a neutral environment, which may help in developing her personality.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the core issue before the court was whether the High Court’s decision to direct the child’s admission to Good Shepherd International School, Ooty, should be upheld, considering the welfare of the child and the objections raised by the appellant.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Cases:

• Vivek Singh vs. Romani Singh, (2017) 3 SCC 231 – Supreme Court of India, discussed “Parental Alienation Syndrome.”
• Gaurav Nagpal vs. Sumedha Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42 – Supreme Court of India, laid down principles for determining child custody and visitation rights, emphasizing the welfare of the child.
• Saraswathibai Shripad Ved v. Shripad Vasanji Ved, ILR 1941 Bom 455 : AIR 1941 Bom 103 – High Court of Bombay, emphasized that the paramount consideration is the welfare of the minor.
• Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, (1973) 1 SCC 840 – Supreme Court of India, held that the object of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, is the welfare of the minor.
• Thrity Hoshie Dolikuka vs. Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka, (1982) 2 SCC 544 – Supreme Court of India, reiterated that the welfare of the child is of paramount importance in custody cases.
• Nutan Gautam vs. Prakash Gautam, (2019) 4 SCC 734 – Supreme Court of India, a case where the court considered the issue of sending a child to a boarding school.

Statutes:

• Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 – The primary statute governing guardianship and custody matters.
• Section 7, Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 – Deals with the power of the court to appoint a guardian.
• Section 12, Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 – Allows the court to make interim orders for the protection of the person or property of the minor.
• Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – Mentioned in the context of the review of laws concerning child custody.

Authority Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Vivek Singh vs. Romani Singh, (2017) 3 SCC 231* to highlight the concept of “Parental Alienation Syndrome” and its negative impact on children caught in parental disputes.
• The Court cited Gaurav Nagpal vs. Sumedha Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42* to emphasize that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody and visitation matters.
• The Court referred to Saraswathibai Shripad Ved v. Shripad Vasanji Ved, ILR 1941 Bom 455 : AIR 1941 Bom 103* to reiterate that the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration for the Court.
• The Court used Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, (1973) 1 SCC 840* to underscore that the primary objective of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 is the welfare of the minor.
• The Court cited Thrity Hoshie Dolikuka vs. Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka, (1982) 2 SCC 544* to reinforce that the welfare of the child is paramount and to discuss the negative effects of parental conflict on children.
• The Court referred to Nutan Gautam vs. Prakash Gautam, (2019) 4 SCC 734* to emphasize that each case concerning child custody and education depends on its specific facts and that no fixed formula can be applied.
• The Court applied the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, particularly Sections 7 and 12, to determine the guardianship and welfare of the child.
• The Court considered the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 in the context of the review of laws concerning child custody.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Welfare of the Child: The court emphasized that the paramount consideration in all matters concerning a child is the child’s welfare. This includes the child’s physical, emotional, and educational well-being.
• Neutral Environment: The court recognized that the child was in a situation where there was marital discord between her parents and that a neutral environment was necessary for her healthy development. The boarding school at Ooty provided such an environment.
• Parental Alienation: The court acknowledged the respondent’s concern that the appellant was poisoning the child against him. The court sought to protect the child from such negative influences.
• High Court’s Observations: The court noted that the High Court had thoroughly considered all aspects of the case, including reports from the school and the District Probation Officer, before deciding to send the child to the boarding school.
• Child’s Progress: The court took into account the respondent’s submissions and the progress reports from the school, indicating that the child was doing well academically and socially.
• Financial Support: The court acknowledged that the respondent was bearing all the expenses of the child’s education at the boarding school, demonstrating his commitment to her well-being.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the High Court’s thorough evaluation and the child’s positive progress at the boarding school. The court also acknowledged the need to protect the child from the negative influences of parental discord. The court rejected the appellant’s arguments, finding no sufficient reason to interfere with the High Court’s order. The court emphasized that the child’s welfare was the paramount consideration, and the boarding school was serving that purpose.

The court quoted from the judgment:

“When the child has to go in the environment, where there is marital discord between her parents affecting the peace of mind of all 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.”

“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.”

Key Takeaways

• Paramountcy of Child’s Welfare: The judgment reinforces that the welfare of the child is the primary consideration in all custody and guardianship matters.
• Importance of Neutral Environment: The court recognized the need for a neutral environment for children affected by parental discord, which can be achieved through boarding schools.
• Protection from Parental Alienation: The court’s concern about parental alienation highlights the importance of protecting children from negative influences from either parent.
• Thorough Evaluation by Courts: The judgment underscores the need for courts to thoroughly evaluate all aspects of a case, including reports from schools and probation officers, before making decisions about a child’s education and welfare.
• Financial Responsibility: The court noted the respondent’s financial support for the child’s education, indicating that such support is a relevant factor in determining the child’s best interests.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the reports received from the Child Welfare Committee, Jharkhand, and Good Shepherd International School, Ooty, be remitted to the High Court for consideration in sealed cover. The Court also requested the High Court to decide the pending appeals, keeping in view the observations made by the Supreme Court.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion of any specific amendment in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in matters of child custody and education, the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. The court reiterated that a neutral environment, such as a boarding school, can be beneficial for children affected by parental discord. The court’s decision did not change the existing legal position but reinforced established principles.

Conclusion

In the case of Sheoli Hati vs. Somnath Das, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to send the child, Aditi, to Good Shepherd International School, Ooty. The court emphasized the paramount importance of the child’s welfare and the need for a neutral environment amidst parental discord. The court also acknowledged the High Court’s thorough evaluation of the case and the child’s positive progress at the boarding school. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to consider all relevant factors, including the reports received, while deciding the pending appeals. This judgment underscores the principle that the child’s best interests should guide all decisions in family law matters.