Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (2.26 seconds)
Documents citing Mohammad Shafi vs Shamin Banoo on 10 August, 1978

Murtaza Quaid Mahuwala vs State Of Gujarat on 19 February, 2020

25. It will thus be seen that even during the marriage the custody of the minor children in case of a boy until he attains the age of 7 years, and in the case of a female until she attains puberty is with the wife. The intention in conferring this custody upon the mother is obviously that she could (take) better care for the children than the father. It is significant that failing the mother also the father is- not the next preferential custodian, but other female relations. It seems to me, therefore, quite clear that so far as the personal law of Muslims is concerned, the right of the father to the custody of the child is deferred, and the primary right is in the mother and in the absence of the mother in other female heirs. This can be explained only on the basis that it is in the interest of the minor and, that it is these female relations or the mother who are capable of looking after the minor properly. In other words, therefore, as long as the right to custody is with the mother, the mother is deemed to be also having the custody and care of the minor. If that is so it seems to me that the mother during the period laid down by the Mahomedan Law has both the custody and the care of the minor as long as she is not disqualified from retaining the custody of the minor. If that is so, then at the time when the petitioner left the respondent's house either because she was driven away, as she says, or as the respondent says, she went of her own, she was deprived of the custody of her minor children Mahomed Races and Waheeda Begum. Mr. Sohoni, therefore, is not right in contending that the petitioner neither had the custody nor as he contends, was a guardian entitled to make an application."
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - S R Brahmbhatt - Full Document

Aisha (Minor) And Another vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 8 October, 2020

15. The entire law about the right of the mother to the custody of her minor children, a son and a daughter, where the parties were an estranged Muslim couple, was considered by the Bombay High Court in Mohammad Shafi vs. Shamin Banoo, AIR 1979 Bom 156. It must be remarked that the facts of the case in Mohammad Shafi show that it was truly a custody dispute between the estranged parents of the two minors, where the application by the mother for custody appears to be one made under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act. She had asked for the custody of her minor son, aged four years and a minor daughter, aged two and a half years, at the time of commencement of action. The facts of the case founded on pleadings of parties can best be understood by a reference to their statement in paragraph nos.2 and 3 of the report, that read:
Allahabad High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Rinku Rukshar vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 8 October, 2020

15. The entire law about the right of the mother to the custody of her minor children, a son and a daughter, where the parties were an estranged Muslim couple, was considered by the Bombay High Court in Mohammad Shafi vs. Shamin Banoo, AIR 1979 Bom 156. It must be remarked that the facts of the case in Mohammad Shafi show that it was truly a custody dispute between the estranged parents of the two minors, where the application by the mother for custody appears to be one made under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act. She had asked for the custody of her minor son, aged four years and a minor daughter, aged two and a half years, at the time of commencement of action. The facts of the case founded on pleadings of parties can best be understood by a reference to their statement in paragraph nos.2 and 3 of the report, that read:
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Ramit Kumar Dey vs Smt. Rituparna Dey (Singha) And Another on 24 January, 2019

In Mohammad Shafi (supra), a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court was considering the conditions to be satisfied for an adjudication under Section 25 of the 1890 Act. While so considering, there was a stray remark as to the definition of the word "guardian" in Section 4(2) of the said Act. Such a stray reference cannot at all be said to be a precedent on the proposition that custody applications are equivalent to applications for declaration or appointment of guardians.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S Bhattacharyya - Full Document

In Re: Appointment Of Guardians For The ... vs Unknown on 30 November, 2004

The judgment of the Single Judge of this Court in the case of Mohammad Shafi (supra) relied upon in the present case by the Petitioner in fact in paragraphs 11 and 12 consider the provisions of section 19 of the Act and clearly holds that unless the Court comes to the conclusion that under section 19 the natural guardian is dis-entitled to be appointed as a guardian because he is unfit, this Court cannot go into the welfare of the child and exercise jurisdiction under section 17 for appointment of a third party as a guardian. The view of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Lovejoy Patell that the power under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is equivalent to the power of the Chancelley Court. In my view in that case, the provisions of section 19(b) are not considered. The present case is based on the interpretation of section 19 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. In my view, the judgments relied upon by the Petitioner has no relevance. Equally, the judgment of the Sindh Court which has been relied upon under section 19 also has no relevance inasmuch as it only holds that the provisions of section 17 and 19 must be read together. It is obvious that the enquiry conducted under section 19(b) and 17 of the Act to the extent over-laps because when the Court decides that the person is unfit under section 19(b) of the Act then such decision is obviously in the welfare of the child as contemplated under section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Suresh Babu vs Madhu on 6 April, 1984

In support of this, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision in Md. Shafi v. Shamin Banoo . On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted the in this case the respondent would-fall under the definition of a "guardian" in S. 4(2) of the Guardians and Wards Act. VIII of 1890, and S. 4(b) of the Hindu Minority and "Guardianship Act, 32 of 1956 and there being no inconsistency between the provisions of theft two Acts, the respondent was entitled to maintain an application under S. 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act on the ground that the ward was removed from the custody of the mother.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Sahil (Minor) And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 3 September, 2020

15. The entire law about the right of the mother to the custody of her minor children, a son and a daughter, where the parties were an estranged Muslim couple, was considered by the Bombay High Court in Mohammad Shafi vs. Shamin Banoo, AIR 1979 Bom 156. It must be remarked that the facts of the case in Mohammad Shafi show that it was truly a custody dispute between the estranged parents of the two minors, where the application by the mother for custody appears to be one made under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act. She had asked for the custody of her minor son, aged four years and a minor daughter, aged two and a half years, at the time of commencement of action. The facts of the case founded on pleadings of parties can best be understood by a reference to their statement in paragraph nos.2 and 3 of the report, that read:
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 Next