SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.

The appellant, being the husband of the fourth respondent, had preferred this appeal, questioning the legality of the order dated 20th February, 2015 passed in W.P.No.4336 of 2015.

2 The appellant preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take action on the final notice dated 10th January, 2015 and to cancel the illegal surreptitious admission given by the third respondent school to the child M.Subhalakshmi, Standard III-B, Admission No.3214 in conspiracy with the fourth respondent kidnapper and the mother of the child, so as to enable the continuance of the child's education in the previous school, namely, St. Johns Matric Higher Secondary school, Baba Nagar, Chennai-49 in order to protect the interest and reasonable well being of the child.

3 The learned Single Judge, having considered all aspects of the matter, particularly, the dispute between the husband and the wife, dismissed the writ petition, holding that the writ petition was filed with a sole attempt to vindicate his grievances against his wife. It was also noted with regret that the appellant is dragging the minor child in the legal battle between himself and his wife.

4 Thiru M.Sivathanu, learned counsel, who happens to be the father of the appellant and father-in-law of the fourth respondent, making a very strong obnoxious and pungent comment against his own daughter-in-law, would submit that the child, namely, M.Subhalakshmi, was in mental trauma for at least more than a month from 30.6.2011 to 2.8.2011, after she was allegedly kidnapped by her mother by shifting her school from St. Johns Matric Higher Secondary School, Baba Nagar, Chennai to D.A.V. Matriculation Higher Secondary School, J.J.Nagar, Mogappair East, Chennai-37. It is further contended that by uprooting the child in the middle of the academic year when the child was studying in St. Johns Matric Higher Secondary School for more than four years, the child had lost her company of friends, teachers and also the proximity of her father and relatives. The further allegation was that shifting has been done in a surreptitious and clandestine manner with a malafide intention to cut-off the child's relationship with the father.

5 On the other hand, Thiru V.Lakshmi Narayanan, learned counsel for the fourth respondent would contend that the appellant is foisting cases on fourth respondent on account of her father-in-law, who is prompting the appellant to file cases. The father of the appellant disregarding the professional ethics, is appearing as an Advocate and creating all discards between the appellant and the fourth respondent. It was further contended that on account of the behaviour of the appellant's father, even the family life of the fourth respondent's brother-in-law was in doldrums and ultimately, her brother-in-law's wife was separated from him. The further contention of the learned counsel is that seemingly the prayer is against the official respondents, but the entire allegations are targeted against the fourth respondent for obtaining custody of the child. The Supreme Court vide order dated 21st August, 2013 in C.A.No.8230 of 2013 awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/-per month as maintenance for the fourth respondent and he daughter M.Subhalakshmi. However the same was reduced to Rs.5000/-by the appellant himself. Thus, the appellant is a wilful non-compliant and disobedient of the court's order. The girl child was admitted to St. Johns Matric Higher Secondary School at Babanagar. The fourth respondent is residing at Padi. The distance between her residence and the school is more than 6 Kms. Now, the distance is less than a kilometre, as the maximum distance fixed by the Central Board of Secondary Education is three kilometres for the children of her age.

6 The learned Single Judge had examined the factual disputes at length. It was found that the fourth respondent obtained th