Sending to boarding school a major life decision? HC orders fresh healing

The Gujarat High Court has set aside an Ahmedabad Family Court order dismissing a mother's petition seeking recovery of ₹6,47,954 from her former husband towards their child's boarding school expenses. The court has remanded the matter to the Family Court for a fresh decision on merits within three months.

A division bench of the Gujarat High Court observed that the Family Court had failed to decide the central issue in the dispute — whether enrolling a minor child in a boarding school amounts to a "major life decision" requiring the consent of both parents under the terms of their divorce decree.

Background of the dispute

The case arises from a mutual consent divorce decree passed in February 2022.

Under the terms agreed by the former couple:

• The father undertook to bear all education-related expenses, including tuition fees and coaching expenses.
• The decree also provided that any "major decision" concerning the child's life must be taken mutually by both parents.

Why the dispute arose

According to the case records:

• The mother shifted the child from Ahmedabad to a boarding school in Vadodara.
• The move resulted in expenses of ₹6,47,954 over two academic years.
• The father refused to reimburse the amount, contending that the child was admitted to the boarding school without his prior deliberation or consent.
• He argued that the unilateral decision violated the terms of the divorce settlement.

The Ahmedabad Family Court accepted the father's contention and dismissed the mother's execution petition.

Arguments before the High Court

The mother's counsel argued that:

• Admission of a child to a boarding school does not amount to a "major life decision".
• A rigid interpretation of financial obligations should not come at the cost of the child's welfare.

The respondent father's counsel argued that:

• The father had been kept completely unaware of the decision.
• The child was admitted to the boarding school without his knowledge or consent.

High Court's observations

The High Court held that the Family Court had failed to examine the fundamental issue in the case.

The division bench observed that:

• The lower court did not determine whether enrolling a child in a boarding school constitutes a "major decision" in the child's life.
• While an executing court cannot alter the terms of a decree, it is empowered to interpret the true scope of those terms.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute, the High Court set aside the Family Court's order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

Directions issued

The High Court directed the Ahmedabad Family Court to:

• Hear both parties afresh.
• Permit the father to raise all issues available to him before the executing court.
• Decide the execution petition on its own merits.
• Complete the exercise within three months from the date of the High Court's order.