Justice Saurabh Banerjee rules that a mother’s constitutional right to personal development and education cannot be curtailed solely due to pending custody and visitation proceedings.
New Delhi, February 5, 2026: The Delhi High Court has clarified that a mother’s fundamental rights to personal development, dignity, and higher education, including opportunities abroad, form an intrinsic part of her freedom under Article 21 of the Constitution and cannot be restricted merely because child custody or visitation matters are sub judice.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee delivered the ruling while adjudicating a mother’s plea seeking permission to travel to the United States with her young son to pursue a Master’s programme in Public Health Education and Promotion at Marymount Univeristy.
Case Background
The parties, who married in 2014, have a minor son born in 2017. Following their separation in 2019, a series of legal proceedings, including disputes over custody and visitation rights, were initiated before the Family Court and the High Court.
The mother secured admission to the graduate programme in the U.S. and filed an application before the High Court seeking permission to travel abroad with her minor son to complete her studies. The father opposed the plea, contending that such relocation would frustrate his visitation rights and lead to parental alienation.
Legal Issue
The critical legal question before the High Court was whether a custodial or visitation dispute could justify restricting a mother’s right to pursue higher education abroad, when such pursuit forms part of her personal growth and autonomy.
Court’s Ruling
Justice Banerjee allowed the mother’s application, granting her and the minor child permission to travel to the United States for the duration of her postgraduate studies. The Bench also modified the existing interim visitation arrangement to account for the changed circumstances.
The Court held that while the welfare of the child remains a paramount consideration in custody and related matters, it must be assessed cumulatively and harmoniously with other constitutional rights of the parent, including the right to education and personal development.
Reasoning of the Court
The High Court observed that a person’s decision to pursue an advanced degree, particularly from a foreign university, is a conscious and deliberate exercise towards individual growth, enhancing dignity and future career prospects. The Bench noted that denying or unlawfully restricting such a choice would amount to an impermissible intrusion into the individual’s right to personal liberty and development under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court emphasised that the fact a mother is a primary caregiver or actively involved in a custody dispute cannot be used as a standalone ground to compel her to abandon her educational ambitions. Instead, such foundational rights should be preserved and respected, even while ensuring that the child’s welfare considerations are balanced appropriately with the mother’s constitutional freedoms.
Justice Banerjee underscored that forcing a mother to choose between raising her child and pursuing higher education would undermine the very essence of the right to life and dignity. The judgment stressed that personal development is an integral facet of life and liberty, which custodial principles must accommodate and not thwart.
Practical Implications
- The ruling reinforces the principle that constitutional rights to dignity, autonomy, and personal growth extend to parents involved in custody disputes, beyond traditional custodial considerations.
- Courts adjudicating relocation or travel applications involving custodial disputes may now give greater weight to individual rights, including educational and personal advancement, alongside child welfare.
- The judgment highlights that custodial proceedings cannot be used as a tool to unduly restrain legitimate personal aspirations of custodial parents.
- Legal practitioners and family courts may find this decision useful in future cases where individual liberties intersect with custodial and visitation disputes.
The judgment adds clarity on the extent to which a parent’s constitutional rights to personal development, including the pursuit of higher education, must be balanced with child custody and visitation considerations without undue curtailment of fundamental freedoms.
