P N Vs. G G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Family Court. The appellant is aggrieved with the observations and the directions of the Family Court that the mother has not acted in the interest of the minor child and has unauthorisedly shifted the child to a school in Faridabad from Carmel Convent School, Delhi and removed the child outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the mother was forced to shift the child from Carmel Convent School to Manav Rachna International School, Faridabad on account of the conduct of the respondent/husband and on account of the fact that the child was embarrassed by the visits of her father to the school. She submits that the Family Court has been influenced by the submissions of the respondent that an undertaking was given as early as in the year 2013 by the appellant that she would not shift the child from Carmel Convent School or outside the jurisdiction of Delhi whereas no such undertaking was given and thus, the order is erroneous and is liable to be quashed and set aside. She further submits that the mother has acted in the best interest of the child, since the school at Faridabad is a far better school than Carmel Convent School, Delhi where the child was earlier admitted. She submits that in the school where the child is studying at present, she is now fully accustomed and is happy with her peer group and in case the order of the Family court is upheld, serious prejudice would be caused to the rights of the child and the child would be emotionally disturbed.

(3.) Mr. Mendiratta, learned counsel for the respondent submits that having regard to the past conduct of the appellant, the respondent was always apprehensive that the appellant-mother would remove the child from the jurisdiction of this Court to deprive the father of visitation, which she has been successful, for the past almost 6 years. He submits that repeated orders regarding meeting with the child have been successively disobeyed by the appellant. Mr. Mendiratta, counsel for the respondent -father submits that the respondent-father was always apprehensive that the appellant mother would remove the child from the jurisdiction of this court. He submits that an application was filed along with Guardianship petition on 09.01.2013. In this application, the following prayers were made :