Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: November 22, 2023
VERMEET SINGH TANEJA ..... Appellant
Through: Ms.Preeti Singh and Mr.Sunklan Porwal, Advocates
Through: Mr.Nikhil Rastogi, Advocate
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. No.60305/2023 (exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
JUDGMENT
1. The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated November 06, 2023 of learned Judge, Family Court, North West District, Rohini Court, Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Family Court’) in G.P. No.52/2023 whereby the learned Family Court had decided the application filed by the appellant herein under Section 43 (2) of the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 (‘G. D. Act’, for short) seeking direction to the respondent herein to send the minor child to Venkateshwar International School, Dwarka, Delhi. The said application was dismissed by the learned Family Court by stating in paragraph 8 as under:
2. The submissions of learned counsel for the appellant are primarily the reiteration of the submissions made before the learned Family Court that is Venkateshwar International School, Dwarka is a much better school in all respects and the said school shall be appropriate for the proper welfare and development of the minor child. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to certain photographs filed to show comparison between the facilities available at Venkateshwar International School, Dwarka and the Prince Public School in Rohini. He also submits that the appellant is ready and willing to arrange private transportation for the child from Pitampura to Dwarka and also from Dwarka to the residence at Pitampura. He states, the appellant can provide residence to the respondent and the child at Dwarka, provided the child studies in the above school at Dwarka.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that if the intent of the appellant is to get the child admitted in Venkateshwar International School, Dwarka, the said school has a branch in Rohini and the respondent is agreeable if the appellant can ensure the admission of the minor child in the said school at Rohini. On this, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he is not sure that the minor child would get the admission in Rohini branch of the Venkateshwar International School.
4. Noting the rival submissions, it must be held that it is a settled position of law that the welfare of a child is of prime consideration for deciding issue of this nature. It is also a conceded position that the respondent/mother is residing in Pitampura and the school at Dwarka is at a distance of 20 kms from Pitampura, and it is also a conceded case that the school at Rohini (where the minor child is currently studying) is much nearer than the school at Dwarka.
5. This fact is enough to reject the appeal. Any order as sought by the appellant shall be to the inconvenience of the minor child who is about 7 years of age, cannot be granted. We are of the view, that the impugned order of the Family Court does not require any interference: The appeal is dismissed, as such.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J. NOVEMBER 22, 2023