INTRODUCTION
In a landmark judgment that gives precedence to the emotional needs of children over the convenience of parents, the Allahabad High Court has ruled that the transfer of a minor to a boarding school cannot be considered a “black and white” solution to resolve custody and visitation disputes between estranged parents. In Dr Dinesh Kumar Agarwal and others vs. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Home), Govt. of U.P., Lucknow and others, decided on January 21, 2026, the Allahabad High Court has held that a child should never become a “weapon” or “collateral damage” in the “war” of matrimonial discord. The judgment was pronounced by a Division Bench of the Court comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh.
BACKGROUND
The case has arisen out of a long-standing matrimonial dispute between the parents, who were married in 2017 and have a minor son born in 2018. The mother had shifted to Lucknow along with the minor son. The disagreement between the parents had intensified in the year 2020, when the father allegedly removed the minor son from Lucknow to Dhanbad without the mother’s consent, leading to criminal charges and a habeas corpus petition being filed before the Allahabad High Court.
The matter dragged on for a considerable period of time and finally reached the Supreme Court. In January 2022, the Supreme Court ordered that the custody of the child be handed over to the mother and that the father be allowed visitation rights. However, issues regarding the implementation of the visitation rights were also being raised, and this led to further habeas corpus petitions, contempt of court cases, and numerous applications to modify the existing situation.
KEY POINTS
Both parents appealed to the High Court. The father sought a modification of the custody arrangement or, if this was not feasible, that the child be placed in a residential boarding school. The father claimed that the emotional development of the child was being adversely affected by the constant bickering between the parents, and that the boarding school would offer the child a well-rounded upbringing.
However, the Division Bench refused to accept this argument. The Court noted that the child had been living with his mother for almost four years, was enrolled in a prestigious school in Lucknow, and was doing well in school and in all other respects. There was no material on record to suggest that the child’s surroundings were toxic or that the child was being neglected while in the mother’s custody.
Crucially, the Court pointed out that there was no expert psychological assessment to back up the claim that it was in the best interests of the child to remove him from his established environment and place him in a boarding school. Without such professional assessment, the Bench held that it was not in a position to order such a drastic step simply to resolve visitation rights or parental discord.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Reaffirming established precedents on child custody matters, the High Court made it clear that the child’s custody with the mother had already been established in previous litigation, including a decision by the Supreme Court, and that there were no emergent circumstances to warrant intervention at this juncture. The Court made it clear that all orders on child custody and visitation rights are always open to modification by the appropriate Family Court, but only on the basis of evidence that the child’s welfare demands such a course of action.
In dismissing the appeals, the Bench made it clear that its decision not to order admission to a boarding school did not preclude the Family Court from reviewing the matter at a later date, provided it was based on credible expert assessment. The Court further ordered the Family Court to give high priority to the pending guardianship application and to dispose of it as expeditiously as possible.
CONCLUSION
The verdict emphasises the uniform judicial policy that always keeps the supreme interest of the child above the logistical or strategic interests of the litigating parents. The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that stability, emotional security, and expert-informed decision-making are still the core elements of the custody jurisprudence. The verdict clearly emphasises that although the parents’ rights are significant, they cannot take precedence over the child’s right to a safe and nurturing environment.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: USIKA K
