Argument That English Medium Schooling Is Needed For Progress Is Far-Fetched; No Direct Bearing On Child’s Welfare With English Medium Education: Gujarat HC In Child Custody Case
The Gujarat High Court affirmed the grant of child custody to the mother after rejecting the father’s “far fetched” argument that one needed to study in an English medium school to advance in life.
The Court dismissed the appeal by a father against the decision of the family court which granted permanent custody of a 4-year-old minor girl child to the mother. The father had submitted that he was more financially capable of taking care of the daughter. He also submitted that there was no English medium school where the mother was living, while the child would have an opportunity to undergo her education at an English medium school if he was granted her custody.
A Division Bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav and Justice Maulik J. Shelat observed, “It is a far fetched an argument that to progress in life, one needs to study in an English medium school from inception. According to us, medium of school education has no direct bearing on welfare of child. It is not out of place to mention here that maternal grandfather of girl is a Principal in a School.”
Advocate Manish S Shah appeared for the appellant, while Advocate Vivek R Trivedi represented the defendant.
The father in this case had challenged the decision of the family court which allowed the mother’s application for permanent custody of their daughter under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (GWA).
The mother had alleged that the father was a headstrong alcoholic who quarrelled with her, and therefore submitted that he should not retain the custody of the daughter. In the application, the mother further stated that a false theft complaint was filed against her, pursuant to which she was called to the police station and threatened to confess the crime. When she refused the same, the police took away custody of her daughter and handed it over to the father.
The High Court noted that there were serious allegations against the father’s character. It was noted that the mother did have custody of the child when she left the matrimonial house but it was snatched away with the complicity of the Police officer.
The Bench stated that Section 25 of the GWA provided that where a ward was removed from the custody of a guardian and where the Court was of the opinion that it was for the welfare of the ward to retain the custody of the guardian, an order can accordingly be made.
“It is in these circumstances, that the paramount consideration of welfare of the child has been considered by the Family Court and the learned Judge observed that the role of the mother in the development of the child’s personality can never be doubted,” the Court observed.
The Court observed that the mother was a graduate who was capable enough to giver her toddler daughter a basic education. “It is not fathomable to accept an argument made by learned advocate of Appellant that future of daughter may be affected as there is no English Medium School in the vicinity or nearby area where the respondent at present is residing with her parents. Welfare of child should not be judged from medium of school especially when child is toddler,” it remarked.
“We are of the firm view that no person should act in a manner not recognized in law. If someone tries to take undue advantage by misusing authority of Police thereby gained in any manner whatsoever then such person can not be allowed to enjoy the illegal gain,” the Bench observed.
The Court also warned the Police not to act as agents in sensitive matters related to the custody of a minor child. The Bench stated such matters were best left to be decided by Family Courts, instead by the men in uniform as “engineers in conspiracy of custody” who “abuse their position.”
Consequently, the Court held, “In light of the above stated facts, reasons, and the case law discussed as we are dismissing the appeal of the appellant – father, then as consequences of the same, the interim arrangement shall not continue. The impugned judgment and decree is hereby confirmed.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the father.
Cause Title: N v. D