Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (1.04 seconds)
Documents citing T.Sivakumar vs The Inspector Of Police on 3 October, 2011

Court On Its Own Motion (Lajja Devi) vs State on 27 July, 2012

Instead of reproducing arguments in detail, it would be suffice to point out that whereas Mr. Arvind Jain primarily argued on the lines of the Full Bench judgment rendered by Madras High Court in T. Sivakumar v. The Inspector of Police (supra), Mr. Chandhiok, learned ASG, argued that view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Sh. Jitender Kumar Sharma v. State and Another (supra) was in tune with law. Since we have already given the gist of these two judgments and what WP(Crl.) No.338/08 and connected matters Page 34 of 62 they decide, to avoid duplicity we are not reproducing in detail, arguments of the learned counsel for the parties on this aspect.
Delhi High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 49 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Independent Thought vs Union Of India on 11 October, 2017

43. A Full Bench of Madras High Court in T. Sivakumar v. Inspector of Police44, dealt with the provisions of the PCMA. It held that a marriage contracted 44 H.C.P. No. 907 of 2011, vide its judgment dated 3rd November, 2011 W.P. (C) No. 382 of 2013 Page 96 with a female less than 18 years and more than 15 years is not a void marriage but is only a voidable marriage. However, the Court went on to hold that stricto sensu the marriage could not be called a valid marriage since the child bride had the option of getting the marriage annulled till she attains the age of 20 years. It held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 138 - Cited by 172 - M B Lokur - Full Document

K.Subramani vs The Commissioner Of Police on 28 November, 2023

In this very T.Sivakumar's case, Hon'ble Full Bench also made it clear that while a minor girl cannot be allowed to walk away from the legal guardianship of her parents, equally if she expresses her desire to the contrary ie., not to go with parents, the Court cannot compel her to go to the custody of her parents and instead the Court may entrust her custody to a fit person or entity subject to her volition.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - M Sundar - Full Document

K.Subramani vs The Commissioner Of Police on 28 November, 2023

In this very T.Sivakumar's case, Hon'ble Full Bench also made it clear that while a minor girl cannot be allowed to walk away from the legal guardianship of her parents, equally if she expresses her https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 36/42 H.C.P(MD)No.1240 of 2023 desire to the contrary ie., not to go with parents, the Court cannot compel her to go to the custody of her parents and instead the Court may entrust her custody to a fit person or entity subject to her volition.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - M Sundar - Full Document

Manish Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others on 31 May, 2021

"50. Nextly, coming to the question whether a minor could be said to have reached the aged of the discretion, we may refer to Section 17(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act which states that one of the matters to be considered by the Court in appointing guardian is, if the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference, the Court may consider that preference also. Whether a minor has attained the intelligent preference is a question of fact which depends upon the capacity of the minor in each case. It cannot be put in a straight-jacket formula. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court though the wish of the minor is also a factor to be taken into consideration by the Court while deciding the custody of the minor, it is not the only matter which is to be taken into consideration. Therefore, the minor cannot walk away to her whims and fancies from the lawful guardianship of her parents. At this juncture, we may refer to the Tamil Nadu Juvenile Justice [Care and Protection of Children] Rules, 2001 wherein Rule 18 states as follows:
Allahabad High Court Cites 69 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

K.Subramani vs The Commissioner Of Police on 28 November, 2023

In this very T.Sivakumar's case, Hon'ble Full Bench also made it clear that while a minor girl cannot be allowed to walk away from the legal guardianship of her parents, equally if she expresses her desire to the contrary ie., not to go with parents, the Court cannot compel her to go to the custody of her parents and instead the Court may entrust her custody to a fit person or entity subject to her volition.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - M Sundar - Full Document

R.Thiagarajan vs ) The Superintendent Of Police on 3 September, 2014

9. Marriage is sacred. It is not a contract as per Hindu Law. Consent cannot be thrust on those who have completed 18 years in the case of female, and male, above 21 years. But a marriage between a male above 21 years and a girl, below 18 years is an offence under the provisions of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929. After considering the provisions in various enactments, a Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in T.Sivakumar vs. Inspector of Police, reported in 2011 (4) MLJ (Crl) 315, held that the male who has committed an offence under the provisions of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, is not entitled to enjoy the fruits of such offence and seek for custody of a minor. Judicial notice can be taken that in Habeas Corpus Petitions, these adolescents report that their marriage was solemnized in a temple, on their own. It may even be the wish of the parents to solemnize a marriage in a temple. But no parent would like his child walk away from the family and getting married on her/his own, in their absence.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next