Mother Cannot Be Asked To Choose Between Career and Child: Delhi HC Allows US Travel for Higher Studies Amid Custody Dispute
Rejecting father’s apprehension, the Court said that constitutional protections do not diminish merely because a woman is a mother
The Delhi High Court has permitted a mother to travel to the United States of America (USA) along with her minor son for completion of her post-graduate studies, holding that a mother cannot be compelled to choose between her child and her right to education and personal development, so long as the welfare of the child is not compromised.
The Court observed that constitutional protections do not diminish merely because a woman is a mother, and that compelling her to abandon higher education would amount to an impermissible intrusion into her personal liberty.
Further reiterated that although the welfare of the minor child remains the paramount consideration in custody matters, it cannot be assessed in isolation. It must be harmonised with the mother’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, including her right to education, dignity, autonomy, and self-development.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed, “Every individual, like the mother herein, is entitled to realise his or her full potential, and a mother cannot be compelled to make an invidious choice between her child and her career. This Court cannot overlook that the right to personal development is an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, and, therefore, any interpretation of ‘custody principles’ must be interpreted in a manner that not only respects and upholds this constitutional guarantee but also is in sync thereof…”.
“…The academic performance of the mother herein clearly reflects her sincerity, discipline, and genuine commitment towards the course she has undertaken. It further demonstrates her capacity to balance academic responsibilities with her role as the primary caregiver to the minor child. More so, since there is nothing to show and/ or it is not the contention of the father that the mother has failed in discharging her duties as a dutiful mother. Consequently, it is hard to say that the mother has approached this Court by way of this application in a cavalier manner…”, the bench further noted.
Advocate Dr. Swati Jindal Garg appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Udit Gupta appeared for the respondent.
The pertinent matter was filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the mother to place additional affidavits. It was in a long-running custody and visitation dispute case between estranged parents, arising after the mother secured admission to a Master’s programme at Marymount University, Virginia.
While the father opposed the relocation, contending that it would frustrate his visitation rights and uproot the child from a settled environment in Delhi, the Court noted that the child had been residing continuously with the mother since 2019 and that no material was placed on record to show any harm to the child’s welfare.
Rejecting the father’s apprehension that the mother may permanently relocate abroad, the Court relied on her past conduct of complying with court directions and held that speculative fears cannot form the basis to deny relief.
It also took note of the mother’s academic performance, the financial sacrifices made to pursue the course, and the arrangements proposed for the child’s education, care, and continued contact with the father.
However, at the same time, the Court also safeguarded the father’s relationship with the child by modifying visitation arrangements. It directed the mother to file a detailed affidavit of undertaking, disclose her residential and educational arrangements in the US, ensure regular video interaction between the father and child, and bring the child back to India during summer and winter vacations for physical visitation.
The bench clarified that custody orders are inherently interlocutory in nature and remain open to modification if circumstances so require. “…Since the nature and quality of care, protection, and affection required during the formative years cannot be assessed in rigid or abstract terms, and there is nothing untoward and/ or harmful which the mother is asking for by seeking permission to study abroad with the minor child, bearing in mind that it directly implicates the emotional, psychological, and developmental needs of the minor child, and whence the mother is taking care of the minor child both financially, physically and emotionally, for the time being, there is no impasse to allow the present application and permit the mother to take the minor child with her during the course of her study”, it also noted.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the mother to travel to the United States with the minor child, subject to strict conditions to ensure continued parental access and compliance with future court directions.
Cause Title: P v. Q [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:945]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Dr. Swati Jindal Garg, Advocate.
Respondent: Udit Gupta, Nidhi Malhotra, Advocate.