Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court has observed that a mother's anxiety for her children's well-being can't be overemphasised but her apprehension of "psychological trauma" to them need not be made an obstacle in their education.

The division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said, “…the apprehension of the appellant mother that they may suffer from psychological trauma, seems to be borne out of her own fear and anxiety which need not be transmitted to the children or be made an obstacle in the future educational path of the children”.

The court was dealing with an appeal by a woman against a trial court order refusing to interfere with a "joint decision" taken by her and her estranged husband to send their children to schools in the United Kingdom (UK).

She argued that the two children may suffer “psychological trauma” because of separation and should therefore be admitted in British School here or be sent to the same school in the UK.

Upon interaction with the children in the chamber, the court said, “…expressed in clear and unequivocal terms, that they both are keen to study abroad and it is with great effort and hard work that they have been able to get admission in their respective schools. Both the children expressed their intelligible decision of studying abroad”.

“The anxiety of a mother for the well-being of the children can never be over emphasized. The concerns may be genuine, but at the same time,…. It can also not be ignored that the children’s welfare would not be compromised in any manner by sending them abroad away from the parents especially when the children have worked so hard for two years to secure the admissions and are keen to study in UK”, the bench said.

The court opined that the children’s own interest and hard work cannot be put to a naught because of the anxieties of the mother which are “without any cogent basis” when considered in the context of the best interest of the children.

The court observed that when a child is forced to live in such a broken home due to the bitter relationship between the parents, each of whom they have great affection for, the atmosphere in the home becomes vitiated and rendered surcharged with tension, causing misery and unhappiness to the child. This is bound to have a serious impact on the child's healthy and normal growth.

“It is in the interest and welfare of the child in such a case that the child is necessarily removed from such unhealthy environment of a broken home to a place where the child can live a normal healthy life and will have a good opportunity of proper education and healthy growth”, it added.

The division bench also rejected the mother’s request for relocation to the UK to meet the children by directing the father to bear her expenses.

“Her desire to relocate in UK cannot be considered as a concomitant to welfare of the children. Learned Judge, Family Court has already made provision for her to visit UK once a year to be with the children and any further claim of the appellant to seek relocation in UK has been rightly declined”, the court stated in its order dated August 1.

Case Title: Sara Carriere Dubey v. Ashish Dubey