VIKRAM R TIKKO Vs. RADHIKA VIKRAM TIKKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/husband is aggrieved by the order of this Court dated 30.10.1995, whereby Civil Revision No. 677/95 was allowed and the impugned order dated 14.8.1995 of the Additional District Judge, directing readmission of the minor son to the American Embassy School (for short 'AES') was set aside and the child was permitted to continue in the Vasant Valley School, to which he had been shifted by the mother/non-applicant.

(2.) The applicant has sought review of the order dated 30.10.1995, inter alia on the ground that this Court failed to hold an enquiry to satisfy itself as to the welfare of the minor and relied merely on the submissions made by the non-applicant. Further the Court erred in not considering that the applicant as father of the minor, being the legal guardian had a legal right to ensure that his son received education in the School to which he was originally admitted with the consent of the parents. It is urged that the order suffers from legal infirmity in so far as it proceeded on the footing that the father had for the time being ceased to be legal guardian, while the child was in mother's interim custody. The applicant could not be denied his legal right as guardian. It is argued that it is not merely the welfare of the minor, but it is both care and welfare of the minor and the estranged wife could not have an absolute or final say and the Court proceeded on the erroneous footing that the mother was the sole repository of that right.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the applicant argued that without there being any foundation, the Court had concluded that the education in the AES hampered the welfare of the child and thereby fell into legal error. The observations in the order dated 30.10.1995 with regard to the petitioner/non-applicant having been left in a state of uncertainty regarding the payment of the School fee was also assailed as erroneous. It was urged that the observation that the creation of the trust by the applicant's father to provide for minor's education was a belated one and an afterthought, was erroneous. Mr. Lekhi urged that the Court had erred in accepting the ipsi dixite of the mother and the submissions made, without there being any evidence for the same. He submitted that judgment had to be based on facts, relevant and duly proved and not on assumed facts and submissions made. He submitted that the Court erred in ignoring that the child was an American citizen and should continue to receive education in the AES, which was the school selected by both the parents and was conducive to the welfare of the minor and has recognition in the country of which he is the citizen.