Sanam v. State NCT of Delhi: Foreign Education, Relocation and Child Visitation (2026)
Court: Delhi High Court | Date: 5 February 2026 | Case: CRL.M.C. 5790/2025.
Why this case matters
The decision addresses a modern custody problem: whether a custodial parent must abandon higher education or career development abroad merely because matrimonial and guardianship proceedings are pending. It also demonstrates how courts can preserve the other parent’s relationship through a modified access plan rather than treating relocation as an all-or-nothing question.
Background
The mother sought permission to travel abroad with the minor child for higher studies. Existing judicial directions had restricted removal of the child from the jurisdiction without permission. The dispute therefore required the High Court to balance the mother’s legitimate educational plans, the child’s stability and the father’s continuing access.
Issues
- Whether pending custody litigation should prevent the custodial parent from pursuing education abroad.
- Whether relocation would substantially prejudice the non-custodial parent’s relationship with the child.
- What safeguards and modified visitation arrangements could protect both interests.
Delhi High Court’s approach
The Court did not treat motherhood as a legal disability preventing professional or educational advancement. At the same time, relocation could not be permitted by ignoring the child’s relationship with the father. The solution lay in a structured arrangement preserving contact through physical and virtual access.
Important principles
- A parent’s legitimate educational or career aspirations can be considered in the welfare analysis.
- Relocation is not automatically contrary to the child’s welfare.
- The non-custodial parent’s relationship must be protected through workable visitation.
- Virtual contact can supplement physical visitation where geography changes.
- Courts can modify earlier access directions when circumstances materially change.
Relocation applications: what evidence matters?
A relocating parent should ordinarily place the admission offer, course duration, accommodation, immigration status, proposed schooling or childcare, travel schedule and a detailed access proposal before the court. The stronger the proposed safeguards, the easier it becomes for the court to evaluate the application as a welfare question rather than a parental contest.
How the opposing parent can respond
An objection should identify concrete welfare prejudice: instability, disruption of schooling, lack of accommodation, immigration uncertainty, history of blocked contact or a credible risk that the relocating parent will frustrate future orders. A bare assertion that relocation reduces physical access may not answer a carefully structured parenting plan.
Practical importance for NRI custody
The judgment is relevant beyond student relocation. Similar balancing arises when a parent receives an overseas employment opportunity, remarries abroad or needs to relocate for family support. The recurring question is whether the move can coexist with the child’s meaningful relationship with the other parent.
Related resources
Read our Child Custody Judgments hub, Shared Parenting guide, and Delhi Child Custody guide.
FAQs
Can a mother take a child abroad while custody proceedings are pending?
Permission depends on existing orders and welfare considerations. Courts can permit travel subject to safeguards and modified visitation.
Does relocation end the father’s visitation rights?
No. Courts can restructure physical access and supplement it with scheduled video interaction.
Can an earlier custody order be modified?
Yes. Child-related directions are capable of modification when circumstances change and welfare requires a different arrangement.
Research note: Consult the complete Delhi High Court judgment before relying on any proposition in litigation.