Summary
The Supreme Court allowed a ten-year-old child to continue at his familiar school near his mother rather than compel attendance at a Delhi boarding school. His expressed preference, settled school environment and attachment to his mother supported that welfare assessment. The direction requiring the wife to elect a single maintenance forum was also set aside. The father received defined daytime visitation, while the underlying matrimonial appeal remained pending.
Issues
- Whether the child should be compelled to attend the boarding school.
- Whether the wife could be required to elect a single maintenance forum.
- What visitation arrangements served the child’s welfare.
Held
- The child had attended his earlier school from the beginning of his education, was acclimatised there and expressly wished to continue. In these circumstances, his welfare did not permit compelling boarding-school attendance, and the mother could not be treated as violating the impugned directions. (¶ 12–13)
- The direction that the wife elect one forum from which to receive maintenance was contrary to law and was set aside. (¶ 14)
- The father could take the child on Sundays and public holidays when visiting Shahjanpur, from 9 a.m. until before 6 p.m. the same day. He retained liberty to seek modification from the High Court according to the child’s welfare. (¶ 15)
Result
Appeals allowed without costs. Impugned orders set aside; child permitted to continue at the Shahjanpur school, maintenance-forum election direction removed, and paternal visitation provided. High Court requested to decide the pending matrimonial appeal expeditiously.