Master Atharva Iyer & Anr. v. St Marks World School through Its Principal & Ors.

Delhi HC21 Jul 2026W.P.(C)/7404/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court; W.P.(C) 7404/2026; CM APPL. 44410/2026; CM APPL. 35963/2026; Justice Jasmeet Singh; 21.07.2026; Transfer Certificate; school transfer of minor child; St Marks World School; Faridabad school admission; matrimonial discord between parents; custody petition pending before Guardianship Court; consent of mother (respondent No. 6) required for Transfer Certificate; child not to shuffle schools; Section 151 CPC early hearing application; petition disposed of; relief sought denied; amicable settlement expected.

What did the court decide?

The child cannot be made to shuffle from one school to another; if the Guardianship Court decides that custody of petitioner No. 1 is to be given to respondent No. 6, the child would again have to come back to respondent No. 1 school. ¶¶24

Master Atharva Iyer & Anr. Vs St Marks World School through Its Principal & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court can direct respondent No. 1 school to issue the Transfer Certificate sought for the minor petitioner, given that a custody petition concerning the child is pending before the Guardianship Court.

¶¶20

Court's answer

¶¶24

Ratio / Principle

This Court cannot direct respondent No. 1 School to issue a Transfer Certificate without the consent of respondent No. 6.

¶¶27

Key takeaways

The relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted.ratio¶¶27
Once the guardianship petition is decided, the parties will be at liberty to apply for admission in the appropriate school.ratio¶¶27
The Court expressed the expectation that petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 6 will come to an amicable settlement so that the education of the child is not unnecessarily hampered.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Jasmeet Singh, J., 21.07.2026), W.P.(C) 7404/2026: a six-year-old minor petitioner and his father sought a Transfer Certificate from St Marks World School (respondent No. 1) after, amid matrimonial discord between the father (petitioner No. 2) and the mother (respondent No. 6), the father admitted the child in a school in Faridabad; the child was in the father's custody and a custody petition was pending before the Guardianship Court. Held: the child could not be made to shuffle between schools while custody remained undecided, and the Court could not direct the school to issue a Transfer Certificate without the mother's consent; upon decision of the guardianship petition the parties would be at liberty to seek admission in an appropriate school, with an expectation of amicable settlement. Relief sought was not granted and the petition was disposed of; the accompanying Section 151 CPC early-hearing application (CM APPL. 44410/2026) was likewise disposed of.

¶1

$~2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 7404/2026 MASTER ATHARVA IYER & ANR. .....Petitioners Through:

¶4

versus

¶5

ST MARKS WORLD SCHOOL THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vedanta Verma, Mr. Rishabh S. Mishra, Advs. for R1-2 Mr. Dhruv Rohtagi, Adv. for R3-4 Ms Seema Dolo, Adv. for R5 Mr. Thakur, Adv. for R6

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 21.07.2026

¶7

CM APPL. 44410/2026

¶8

This is an application filed under Section 151 of CPC, 1908, on behalf of the petitioners seeking early hearing of the CM APPL. No. 35963/2026 pending in the present petition.

¶9

For the reasons stated in the application, issue notice.

¶10

Mr. Verma, Mr. Rohtagi, Ms. Dolo and Mr. Thakur, learned counsels accept notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1-2, 3-4, 5 and 6, respectively.

¶11

With consent of parties, the petition is being taken up for hearing.

¶12

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶13

W.P.(C) 7404/2026

¶14

In the present case, the petitioner namely, Master Atharva Iyer, a minor boy aged about 6 years, was studying at respondent No. 1 school.

¶15

The petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 6 have matrimonial discord, as a result of which, petitioner No. 2 has moved out of the matrimonial home and

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 28/07/2026 at 11:41:11

¶18

shifted to his mother’s house at Faridabad. The petitioner No. 1, as of today, is in the custody of petitioner No. 2.

¶19

Consequently, the petitioner No. 2 has admitted petitioner No. 1 i.e., the child, in a school located in Faridabad and sought Transfer Certificate from respondent No. 1 so that the child can continue with his studies in the school situated at Faridabad.

¶20

Since the Transfer Certificate sought has not been issued, the present petition has been filed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

In the present case, when the petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 6 (mother) were residing at their matrimonial home in Vidhnu Garden, the petitioner No. 1 was studying in a school nearby i.e., the respondent No. 1 School.

¶22

The petitioner No. 1, as of today, is in the custody of petitioner No. 2 and the petition for the custody of the child is already pending in the Guardianship Court, thus, the issue of custody of the child is yet to be decided.

¶23

Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 states that the petitioner No. 1 has been forcefully taken away by petitioner No. 2 and the same is not with the consent of respondent No. 6 and the respondent No. 6 is contesting to get the custody of the minor child back from petitioner No. 2.

¶24

In this scenario, I am of the view that the child cannot be made to shuffle from one school to another school. In case, the Guardianship Court decides that the custody of the petitioner No. 1 has to be given to the respondent No. 6, the child will again have to come back to respondent No. 1 school.

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 28/07/2026 at 11:41:11

¶27

Additionally, I cannot direct respondent No. 1 School to issue a Transfer Certificate without consent of the respondent No. 6. 16. As soon as the guardianship petition is decided, the parties will be at liberty to apply for admission in the appropriate school. It is expected that petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 6 will come to an amicable settlement so that the education of the child is not unnecessarily hampered. 17. In view of the above, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted.

¶28

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶29

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶30

JULY 21, 2026/AS

¶31

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 28/07/2026 at 11:41:11

Master Atharva Iyer & Anr. v. St Marks World School through Its Principal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Master Atharva Iyer & Anr. v. St Marks World School through Its Principal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satya Prakash Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Namita Gupta Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ritu Dhingra Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

M/S B.M. Water Meters Vs Delhi Jal Board & Anr.

Sadhu Vaswani International School for Girls Vs Directorate of Education

Mahinder Narang & Anr. Vs Gurpreet Kaur Nanda & Ors.

Kamal Prakash Yadav Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Kunwar Pal Vs Servel India Pvt. Ltd.

Kaila Devi College of Education & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Aadinath Academy Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Nishit Badola Vs Union of India through Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Anr.

Bharat Pustak Bhandar Vs Sammaan Capital & Anr.

Siddhivinayak Shikshan Prasark Mandals R.K. B.Ed. College Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Ram Ji College of Pharmacy Vs Pharmacy Council of India