Allowed

Sh. Bhishma Tyagi, through His Spa (Lokendra Tyagi) v. Mrs. Jyotsna Singh

Delhi HC11 Aug 2025MAT.APP.(F.C.)/288/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged an order permitting the respondent mother to take the child to the USA for higher education. The High Court found the Family Court reasonably considered relevant factors, including the child's age and residence history. No interference was warranted, and the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal and any pending applications were dismissed.

Sh. Bhishma Tyagi, through His Spa (Lokendra… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~59

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- MAT.APP.(F.C.) 288/2025, CM APPL. 49039/2025 (Stay) & CM APPL. 49040/2025 (Ex. from filing the certified copy of the order dt. 24.07.2025)

¶4

SH. BHISHMA TYAGI, THROUGH HIS SPA (LOKENDRA TYAGI)

¶5

.....Appellant Through: Mr. Shamindra Singh Kadian, Ms. Kamna Sinha and Mr. Ranvir Sangwan, Advocates. versus MRS. JYOTSNA SINGH .....Respondent Through: None.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

¶7

O R D E R % 11.08.2025

¶8

The present Appeal is filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, 1984, by the Appellant challenging the Impugned Order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the learned Family Judge, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, in Guardianship Petition No. 26/2023.

¶9

The learned Family Court permitted the Respondent to take the child to United States of America¹ for a period of one year. The Appellant, being the father of the child, assails its correctness.

¶10

It is on record that the Respondent, in order to improve her qualification, has secured admission to a two-year Master of Science (Information Science) degree programme at the University of Arizona,

¶11

1 USA.

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2025 at 12:35:13

¶14

Tucson, Arizona, USA. The first year of the programme was conducted in a hybrid mode. However, for the second year of the programme, she has to attend the course physically in the University.

¶15

The Respondent has undertaken to return to India upon completion of the said one-year academic requirement. While granting the aforesaid permission, the Learned Family Court further directed that the Appellant shall be entitled to interact with the minor child through video calls every Saturday and Sunday for a duration of thirty minutes each.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Family Court neither interacted with the child nor obtained any expert opinion, and therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable. It is further contended that the Court, in the absence of any specific prayer to that effect, erroneously granted permission to the Respondent to take the child to USA for a period of one year.

¶17

This Court has considered the submissions. The learned Family Court took into account all relevant aspects of the matter, particularly that the child is only seven years old and has been residing with the Respondent for the last three years. The Appellant did not seek the Court’s direction to obtain the consent of the child. It is further noted that the Respondent has secured admission to the two-year degree programme of M.S. (Information Science) at the University of Arizona, USA. She completed the first year of the programme in hybrid mode, attending classes online from home, and is now required to physically attend the University to complete the remaining portion of the course.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid position, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned Order.

¶19

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2025 at 12:35:13

¶20

The Appeal, along with the pending application (s), if any, is dismissed.

¶21

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J

¶22

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J AUGUST 11, 2025/nd/kr

¶23

Sh. Bhishma Tyagi, through His Spa (Lokendra Tyagi) v. Mrs. Jyotsna Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh. Bhishma Tyagi, through His Spa (Lokendra Tyagi) v. Mrs. Jyotsna Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gagandeep Singh @ Shainkey Vs Balveen Kaur @ Simpi

Neeraj Sehgal Vs Seema Sehgal

Smt Savitri Vs Pawan Kumar

Pushpender Vs Sonia Choudhary

Pramod Dutt @ Yogesh Verma @ Avinash Kumar Vs Tarun Verma

Manish Jain Vs Ishita Jain

Chanda Kumari Vs Nitesh Sharma

Saswati Mukherjee Vs Prasanta Mukherjee

Kavita Arora & Anr. Vs Deepak Arora & Ors.

Jitendarjit Singh Ahluwalia Vs Surrinderjit Singh Ahluwalia & Ors.

Shivi Aggarwal Vs Srishti Aggarwal @Rashi Since Unsound Mind through Her Father Piyush Aggarwal

Drharors Aesthetics Private Ltd. Vs Rahul Shawel

Gaurav Gupta & Ors. Vs Union Bank of India

Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board Vs Nageshwar Sharma Sole Prop of M/S Sarthak Construction Co.