New Delhi: A mother’s constitutional right to education cannot be curtailed simply because she is the primary caregiver, the Delhi High Court has ruled, allowing a woman to travel to the US with her 9-year-old son to complete a master’s degree despite her estranged husband’s objections.
Refusing to make motherhood a barrier to professional advancement, Justice Saurabh Banerjee rejected the notion that constitutional freedoms must be surrendered to fulfil traditional maternal roles.
“It is now settled law that fundamental rights are not to be construed in a manner leading to stereotyping or that which confines an individual to the traditional roles imposed by the society. 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,” Justice Banerjee held in a 5 February judgment.
“On the contrary, enabling a mother to pursue higher education strengthens her dignity, economic independence, and overall well-being, elements that lie at the core of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution and, in turn, equips her to provide a more secure, stable, and nurturing environment for the child,” he added.
The court permitted the woman to travel to complete her Public Health Education and Promotion programme at Marymount University in Virginia, scheduled to end in 2027, subject to strict safeguards protecting the father’s visitation rights.
Also Read: Delhi’s single women vs RWAs. Story of the new ‘problem tenants’
A marriage ‘marked by litigation’
The couple, married in 2014 and parents to a child born in 2017, have what the High Court described as a “chequered history of litigation(s)”.
The woman has not lived in the matrimonial home since 2019 due to “matrimonial discord”, with both parties based in Delhi pursuing multiple cases against each other.
In February 2023, the Tis Hazari court in Delhi granted the father visitation rights. In 2024, the mother left India with the child for the US after securing admission to the post-graduate programme, without seeking court permission or the father’s consent.
This prompted the husband to move a habeas corpus petition “wherein he sought production of the minor child who had been moved by the mother to the USA, without permission of the Court or his consent”.
Following an undertaking by the mother and a court order, she returned to India within two months as directed. In the final two months of 2024, the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Ministry of External Affairs and Bureau of Immigration were specifically directed to ensure neither the mother nor the child could leave the country without court permission.
When the mother approached the Supreme Court in August 2025, it “allowed the child to keep visiting his father twice a month from Friday afternoon, after school, till Saturday evening up to 05:00 PM”, subject to further arrangements by the Family Court or high court. The apex court also granted her liberty to seek permission to leave the country before these forums.
The competing claims
Before the Delhi High Court, the mother sought permission to travel to the US with her son to complete her master’s degree. She had already completed one semester with a grade point average of 3.33 out of 4, funded entirely by her parents who sold their immovable properties in Haridwar to support her education.
The HC was told she had already missed two semesters and losing any more would cost her the degree.
The child’s father strongly opposed the move, alleging a “chequered history of litigation” and expressing “grave apprehension” that she intended to permanently remove the child from Indian jurisdiction.
His counsel argued that relocation would render his visitation rights “meaningless and illusory”, potentially causing “long-term psychological harm” to the minor by severing paternal bonds. Uprooting the child from Mount Carmel School in New Delhi would be “gravely detrimental” to his development, the father contended.
The mother countered that as the primary caregiver solely responsible for the child since 2019, she cannot be compelled to surrender her Article 21 right to personal growth. Her academic advancement, she maintained, would secure the child’s long-term financial stability.
The father also contended she was not a dutiful mother, though the court noted she had demonstrated “her capacity to balance academic responsibilities with her role as the primary caregiver to the minor child”.
Rights vs expectations
The High Court noted this as “a case where a mother who has secured admission to a post-graduate degree in a recognised foreign university with the bona fide objective of augmenting her academic qualifications as also enhancing her professional competence, long-term employability, and economic independence, and even though she is willing to take the responsibility of the minor child, however, since there are various litigations pending inter se her and the father of the minor child, there is a severe resistance/ opposition from him”.
Justice Banerjee examined the question of “to decide the weightage that can be accorded to the said post-graduate degree under such circumstances, more so, since it is reasonably expected to significantly improve not only her future earning capacity, thereby enabling her to provide sustained financial stability, security and overall well-being but also of the minor child as well. Also, such a decision is grounded not only in the mother’s fundamental right to personal growth and development, but also keeping in mind the best interests of the minor child”.
Describing a post-graduate degree, especially from a foreign institution, as “a conscious exercise undertaken by an individual aimed towards individual growth, dignity and the ability to attract better future career prospects”, the court held that “denial or unreasonable restriction on exercise of such a choice” would “tantamount to an impermissible intrusion into the very spirit of the right to personal liberty and development enshrined and protected under Article 21 of the Constitution”.
“No doubt, there are options galore within India, however, practically a course from a foreign university has its own prominence, relevance, value and charm,” the court observed.
Addressing societal expectations of maternal roles, the court emphasised that constitutional protections do not diminish due to parental status. “Fundamental rights are not to be construed in a manner leading to stereotyping or that which confines an individual to the traditional roles imposed by the society,” the judge held.
Rejecting the father’s fears of permanent departure, the court noted that the mother had given an undertaking to return to India after completing her degree.
The court also addressed the child’s welfare, observing: “More so, separating the minor child from his mother can prove fatal for his welfare.”
Justice Banerjee said that the right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 “necessarily encapsulates the right to personal development, self-realisation, and the freedom to make meaningful life choices”.
“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 court ruled.
The safeguards
To protect the father’s rights while enabling the mother’s education, the court modified existing interim visitation arrangements and granted permission subject to strict conditions.
The mother must file a detailed affidavit of undertaking, including residential and school details in the US, provisions for virtual visitation rights for the father, physical meetings in India during summer and winter vacations, and a commitment to return to India upon completing the degree without taking up new courses or jobs.
The court also required a chartered accountant certificate disclosing the child’s maternal grandfather’s income, as he is funding both the relocation and education.
The FRRO and Ministry of External Affairs have been directed to facilitate the travel once these conditions are met.
(Edited by Prerna Madan)
Also Read: Who is an ‘ideal Indian wife’? Madhya Pradesh High Court’s answer