Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing G. Ponniah Asari vs Suppiah Asari And Ors. on 16 October, 1934

In The Matter Of Lovejoy Patell And Anr. vs Unknown on 31 March, 1943

873, and Ponniah Asari v. Subbiah Asari ('35) 22 A.I.R. 1935 Mad. 363, The girl is a bright and intelligent girl. I am satisfied that she will be happy if she is permitted to live with the applicant. The fact of her living with the parents for a month has in no way impaired her affection for the applicant which is disclosed in every one of her letters. I am indeed relieved to find that her wishes coincide with what, in the circumstances, I conceive to be the requirement of the law. She has no fancy for getting married at this early age and having regard to the opinion, she expressed before me against early marriage and to what I have stated about her capacity under the Mussalman law and even under the Indian Majority Act in matters of marriage, dower and divorce it would not be right for me to do anything which may possibly expose her to undue pressure from her parents and thereby affect or impair her capacity to decide for herself the matter of her own marriage.
Calcutta High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jot Ram vs Taru Ram on 26 August, 1969

To the like effect is the judgment of the Madras High Court in G. Ponniah Asari v. Suppiah Asari and Ors. AIR 1935 Mad. 363. Here the boy has clearly shown his intelligent preference to live with his mother's sister and not with his father as he was not caring for his welfare. His inclination to live with his mother's sister is a significant factor which merits consideration in accordance with Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and a conclusion can be arrived at that the boy would be better looked after under the care of his mother's sister.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Km. Sunita And Anr. vs Smt. Shyam Kali on 1 October, 1981

(2) G. P. ponniah, Asari v. Suppiah Asari, AIR 1935 Mad 363. In this case the petitioners were father and brother of a minor girl aged 9 years and the respondents were her maternal uncles. The girl's mother died when she was about one year old. Taking into consideration the entire facts it was held that the father's right to the custody of the minor, a prima facie right, could be negatived by the circumstances showing either past indifference and neglect or tacit consent in the infant being brought up by other relatives. It was further held that if the application for the custody of minor was not bona fide, it cannot be allowed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Vegesina Venkata Narasaiah vs Chintalapati Peddi Raju on 9 February, 1970

Evidently the observations quoted by us earlier show that if it is proved that the welfare of the child will be better served by keeping the child away from the father, the custody of the child should not be handed over to the father. This case came up for consideration before Bench of the Madras High Court in Ponniah Asari v. Suppiah Asari, AIR 1935 Mad 363, and the Madras High Court's observations at page 364, while referring to the aforesaid case that 'there is one very important matter which has to be considered and that is the welfare of the minor" clearly show that that aspect of the matter was not considered in AIR 1929 Mad 81.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 15 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

S. Soora Reddi vs S. Chenna Reddi And Ors. on 1 September, 1949

195 : (156 I. C. 430) and Ponniah Asari v. Suppiah Asari, A. I. E. (22) 1935 Mad. 363 : (158 I. C. 95). It is a proposition so well known and established that it cannot be questioned at all that the welfare of the minor is the prime consideration in such matters and that even the paramount rights of the father as the natural guardian should be subordinate to the welfare of the minor.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Smt. Dr. Snehlata Mathur vs Mahendra Narain on 29 November, 1978

Daulat Kaur, AIR 1961 Raj 30; Muthuswami Chettiar v. Chinna Muthuswami Moopanar, AIR 1935 Mad 195; Ponniah Asari v. Suppiah Asari, AIR 1935 Mad 363; Gangarapu Chinna Sambayya v. Polepalli Rudrappa, AIR 1935 Mad 568; Surat Ram v. Mt. Nardu, AIR 1953 Him Pra 50; Smt Mohini v. Virender Kumar, AIR 1977 SC 1359 and Mt. Sudhia v. Makka; 54 Ind Gas 418; (AIR 1919 All 49 (2)). It is contended on the basis of the above authorities that the welfare of the minor lies in allowing her to remain in the custody of her mother and her maternal grand parents and that it would be too harsh to give a direction for handing over the child to the custody of the father whom she does not recognise and has developed no feeling of affection towards her father.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 23 - Cited by 13 - N M Kasliwal - Full Document
1   2 Next