Sending Child to Boarding School Is Not a Solution to Parental Conflict, Says Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently cautioned that in matrimonial battles between estranged parents, a child cannot be treated as a weapon or collateral damage, holding that sending a minor to a boarding school is not a “black and white” solution to parental conflict and must be preceded by a careful psychological evaluation of the child.

A division bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh made the observation while dismissing appeals filed by both parents of a seven-year-old boy, arising out of long-running custody and visitation disputes.

Court was specifically dealing with the father’s plea seeking either a change of custody or, alternatively, an order directing that the child be sent to a residential boarding school to ensure what he described as neutral and holistic upbringing.

The couple got married in 2017 and had a son in 2018. Following matrimonial discord, the mother moved to Lucknow with the child. In 2020, the father allegedly took the child from Lucknow to Dhanbad without the mother’s consent, leading to criminal proceedings and a habeas corpus petition before the high court.

After prolonged litigation, the custody of the child was restored to the mother in January 2022 pursuant to Supreme Court directions, while detailed visitation rights were granted to the father. However, disputes over the implementation of visitation led to multiple proceedings, including a second habeas corpus petition, contempt proceedings, and repeated applications seeking modification of visitation arrangements.

During these proceedings, the father argued that the continuing hostility between the parents was adversely affecting the child’s emotional development. He proposed that the child be admitted to a reputed boarding school, offering to bear all expenses, contending that such an arrangement would insulate the child from parental conflict and allow both parents to interact with him in a neutral environment during vacations.

The bench, however, declined to accept this submission. It noted that the child had been living with his mother for nearly four years, was attending a good school in Lucknow, and was performing well academically and otherwise. Court found no material on record to suggest that the child was living in a toxic or harmful environment or that his welfare was being compromised in the mother’s custody.

Crucially, court pointed out that no expert report or professional psychological evaluation had been placed before it to support the contention that removing the child from his mother and sending him to a boarding school would be in his best interest. In the absence of such material, the bench held that it could not direct such a course merely to ease the implementation of visitation rights or to resolve parental friction.

On the issue of custody, court reiterated that custody with the mother had already been upheld in earlier proceedings, including up to the Supreme Court, and that no emergent circumstances existed to justify interference at this stage. It emphasised that custody and visitation orders are always subject to modification by the competent family court based on evidence.

While rejecting the appeals, the bench clarified that its refusal to order boarding school admission would not prevent the family court from examining the issue in future, if supported by expert evidence. Court also directed the family court to prioritise and expeditiously decide the pending guardianship proceedings, underscoring that the child’s welfare must remain paramount throughout.

Case Title: Dr. Dinesh Kumar Agarwal and others vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Home) Govt. of U.P., Lucknow and others

Judgment Date: January 21, 2026

Bench: Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh