The Delhi High Court has granted permission to a mother to travel to the United States of America (USA) along with her minor son to pursue a postgraduate program, emphasizing that a mother’s fundamental right to personal development cannot be curtailed solely on the ground of existing custody arrangements.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee, presiding over the case Smt. Twinkle Vinayak v. Sh. Vishal Verma, observed that while the welfare of the child is paramount, it must be balanced with the mother’s right to development and autonomy. The Court held that denying permission for the mother to pursue higher education would amount to an “impermissible intrusion” into her Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Case Background
The case involves a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner-mother and the respondent-father, who married in 2014 and have a son born in 2017. Since their separation in May 2019, the child has been in the mother’s custody.
The litigation history includes a Family Court order from January 2023 granting the father visitation rights, which was subsequently modified by the High Court. In July 2024, the mother traveled to the USA with the child to commence a Master’s program at Marymount University, Virginia, without prior court permission. This led to the father filing a Habeas Corpus petition (Vishal Verma vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.). Following an order from the Supreme Court in August 2025, which allowed the mother to move the appropriate court for permission to travel, the mother filed the present application in the High Court seeking permission to return to the USA with her son to complete her course.
Submissions by the Parties
Arguments for the Petitioner-Mother: Represented by Dr. Swati Jindal Garg, the mother submitted that she had secured admission to the “Public Health Education and Promotion (M.S.)” program at Marymount University, spanning from August 2024 to August 2027. She argued that the course would enhance her career prospects and financial stability, ultimately benefiting the child.
Dr. Garg contended that the mother had already completed the first semester with a high GPA and that her parents had sold properties to fund her education. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Vivek Singh vs. Romani Singh, she argued that the mother is the natural guardian and her presence is integral to the child’s holistic growth. Relying on Vikram Vir Vohra vs. Shalini Bhalla, the counsel asserted that a mother cannot be compelled to choose between her child and her professional advancement. The mother also undertook to secure the child’s admission to a school in Arlington, Virginia.
Arguments for the Respondent-Father: Opposing the plea, Mr. Udit Gupta, counsel for the father, argued that the application was an attempt to frustrate the father’s visitation rights and alienate the child. He contended that the welfare of the child cannot be subordinated to the mother’s career aspirations.
Mr. Gupta relied on precedents like Rosy Jacob vs. Jacob A. Chakramakkal and Shilpa Aggarwal vs. Aviral Mittal, arguing that relocating the child abroad would uproot him from his stable environment in India and render the court’s jurisdiction ineffective. He expressed apprehension that the mother would not return to India, thereby permanently depriving the father of access to his son.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Saurabh Banerjee analyzed the case on the dual considerations of the “welfare of the minor child” and the “mother’s fundamental right to personal development.”
The Court observed that the Right to Life under Article 21 encapsulates the right to personal development and the freedom to make meaningful life choices. The Judge stated:
“The fact that a mother is the primary caregiver and responsible for the upbringing of a child cannot be a ground to compel her to surrender her right to education, personal growth, and/or self-advancement. On the contrary, enabling a mother to pursue higher education strengthens her dignity, economic independence, and overall well-being… and, in turn, equips her to provide a more secure, stable, and nurturing environment for the child.”
The Court noted that the mother’s decision to study abroad was a “bona fide and reasoned life choice” which should not be restricted absent any demonstrated harm to the child. The Court found the mother’s academic performance reflective of her sincerity and her ability to balance her role as a caregiver.
Addressing the father’s concerns, the Court found the apprehension regarding the child’s displacement unconvincing, noting that children often accompany parents pursuing opportunities abroad. Regarding the fear that the mother might not return, the Court pointed out that she had complied with previous directions to return to India for court appearances, which established her bona fides.
Drawing reliance from the Supreme Court’s decision in Vikram Vir Vohra, the High Court reiterated:
“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.”
The Decision
The High Court allowed the mother’s application, permitting her to travel to the USA with the minor child to complete her postgraduate program.
To protect the father’s rights, the Court imposed strict conditions to be included in an Affidavit of Undertaking by the mother:
- No Relocation: She must provide her residential address in the USA and not relocate without prior notice.
- Virtual Visitation: The father is granted video conferencing access for 30 minutes on Saturdays and Sundays, and 10-15 minutes on Wednesdays.
- Physical Visitation in India: The mother must ensure the child’s presence in Delhi for two months during summer vacations and ten days during winter vacations. During these visits, the father is granted physical meetings twice a week for four hours and overnight visitation on weekends.
- Return to India: The mother must return to India upon completing her degree without taking up any new course or job abroad.
The Court also directed the mother to file proof of financial support, including her father’s Income Tax Returns. The order is to be communicated to the FRRO and the Bureau of Immigration to facilitate their travel.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Smt. Twinkle Vinayak v. Sh. Vishal Verma
- Case Number: CM(M) 159/2023
- Coram: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
