Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Ruhi Sahina vs Syed Masidur Rahman on 28 August, 2018

Smt. Arpita Manna (Bera) vs Sahadev Bera on 5 December, 2019

A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ruhi Sahina vs. Syed Masidur Rahman reported in 2018 (4) ICC 166 (Cal) relying on the decision in the case of Subhadip Laskar vs. Sanjukta Laskar reported in 2011 (3) CHN 575, held that it is the place where the minor is presently residing is to be considered for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction where the application under Act VIII is to be filed. In the said judgment also, this Court gave answer to the legislative intent, why the words and expression 'the child ordinarily resides' has been used, it is held that in order to enure the benefit of the child, the legislature consciously fixes the jurisdiction of the court to a place where 'the child ordinarily resides' because when the custody matter would be heard, the child would be brought to the court, and, it is not expected that at every hearing day, the child would be brought from the place where he ordinarily resides to another place where the application is filed travelling a considerable distance.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - B Chaudhuri - Full Document

Sanchayita Deb (Guha) vs Susanta Deb on 10 January, 2020

10. Thus, Section 9 confers the territorial jurisdiction to the court in the matter of Guardianship application. Firstly, when the application is in respect of the guardianship of the person of a minor it is to be filed in the court under whose territorial jurisdiction the minor, ordinarily resides. Secondly, if such application relates to the property of the minor there are two fora and the applicant may chose either of the two, namely, a court under whose territorial jurisdiction the minor ordinarily resides, or under whose territorial jurisdiction the minor has property. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ruhi Sahina vs. Syed Masidur Rahman 7 reported in (2018) 5 WBLR (Cal) 299 observed in paragraph 11 of the said judgment as hereunder:-
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - B Chaudhuri - Full Document

Shantanu Moitra vs Ankana Moitra on 22 November, 2022

A coordinate bench of this court in the case of Ruhi Sahina Vs. Syed Masidur Rahaman reported in 2018 (4) SCC 166 (Cal) relying on the decision of Subhadip Laskar Vs. Sanjukta Laskar reported in 2011 (3) CHN 575 held that it is the place where the minor is presently residing is to be considered for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction where the application under ACT VIII is to be filed.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1