The family court's authority to direct child custody arrangements in the interest of education and welfare is paramount, contingent on establishing proper schooling.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioners challenge Ext.P3 order of the learned Family Court, Malappuram, since it has directed the first among them to bring back her children to India - to be left in the care of her mother(2^nd petitioner herein) – for the singular reason that they were not being sent to school at Abu Dhabi, where she is staying; but, clarifying that this will be so only until she is able to provide proper schooling to them abroad.

2. It is the specific contention of Sri.P.Jeril Babu – learned counsel for the petitioners, that the shifting of the children to India, in compliance of Ext.P3 order, is no longer necessary because, the 1^st petitioner has obtained admission for them in a school, near where she is now staying, as evident from Ext.P5 receipt dated 02.02.2026. He prayed that hence this Court hold that the 1^st petitioner is now not under the obligation to bring back the children.

3. Sri.B.Surjith – learned counsel for the respondents, however, countered the afore, saying that the direction in the impugned order - that the 1^st petitioner bring back the children to India - is not solely because they were not sent to school, but also since they were not being taken care of properly. He showed us that, the learned Family Court has directed the 1^st petitioner to have the children with their maternal grandmother – the 2^nd petitioner; with visitation being reserved over them to the paternal grandparents, as also to the 1^st respondent – their father, whenever he is in India. He, however, conceded that the father of the children is also abroad, as of now. He argued that, the arrangement in the impugned order leaves both grandparents visitation/interim custody rights over the children in equal measure; and prayed that, therefore, it be not disturbed.

4. We cannot find favour with the afore submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents because, as rightly argued by Sri.P.Jeril Babu – learned counsel for the petitioners, the sole reason that weighed with the mind of the learned Family Court, in issuing Ext.P3, is that, when it interacted with the children online, they said that they were not attending school. The Court then acted in the imperative mandate of parens patriae jurisdiction - holding that the children cannot be allowed to be in a foreign country without attending school, their future being likely to be severely compromised - and hence directed that “Till getting an admission in a school at abroad where the 1^st respondent is residing and still the children are going regularly to the school at abroad the respondents are directed to bring the children to the native place and to continue their education by staying along with 1^st respondent’s mother if 1^st respondent is not available in India.” (sic)

5. The learned Family Court further made an arrangement – but, only for the time when the children are thus in India - that the paternal grandparents will be allowed to visit them on the specified dates and time frames mentioned in the impugned order.

6. It is ineluctable, from any manner of reading Ext.P3, that the arrangements therein are only until the 1^st petitioner – mother, is able to obtain admission for the children in a school at Abu Dhabi; and that the singular concern of the Court was that they are left without proper education.

7. However, since the 1^st petitioner now says that she has obtained admission for the children in a good school and that they are attending classes, it is for her to move the learned Family Court appropriately and produce before it all documents and evidence in substantiation. Obviously, if the learned Family Court is to be convinced that the children are being taken care of well, including by being offered proper education; there is