Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.35 seconds)
Vincy Cajetan Noronha vs Steffi Genovevo Fernandes on 28 April, 2025 cites

Gaytri Bajaj vs Jiten Bhalla on 5 October, 2012

46. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Gaytri 44/51 ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2025 22:27:01 ::: GP-1&13&2-2024-Jt.doc Bajaj Vs. Jiten Bhalla (supra) which has been relied upon by the Respondent that the Court is required by means of a personal interaction with the children, to bring the issue with regard to custody and visitation rights to a satisfactory conclusion. Having interacted with Master Yohan, I had occasion to consider that he has a great bonding with the Respondent and refers to her as his mother. There is no dispute that the Respondent has been taking care of the basic needs of Master Yohan including his education since year 2021, initially with Johnny's assistance and thereafter, after his demise in 2023 on her own. Thus, in my view, the fact that the Respondent does not have the affluence which the Petitioners have, is not an issue that can cloud the consideration of this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 69 - R Gogoi - Full Document

Indra Sarma vs V.K.V.Sarma on 26 November, 2013

42. The Petitioners have also alleged that the Respondent has tutored Master Yohan to keep his distance from his grand-parents, i.e. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and his aunt Petitioner No.3. The Petitioners have placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Indra Sarma Vs. K.V. Sarma (supra) and of this Court in Kshitija Vijay Kakade Vs. The State of Maharashtra 15, wherein it is held that it is necessary for the child to be given overnight custody, vacations and shared custody between contesting parents. These decisions are in matrimonial cases, where the dispute is between the husband and wife as to custody of the minor child. In the present case, the situation is different. The Petitioners are residents of Goa, which is an unfamiliar surrounding for Master Yohan as he has since the age of four years till today lived in 15 Criminal Writ Petition No.505 of 2020 Order dtd.04.09.2024 42/51 ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2025 22:27:01 ::: GP-1&13&2-2024-Jt.doc Mumbai. The Petitioners have been visiting Mumbai, as this Court has granted access of Master Yohan to the Petitioners. However, this Court is of the view that it would not be in Master Yohan's interest that he is uprooted from his familiar surroundings in Mumbai and made to live in Goa with the Petitioners.
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 1131 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Gaurav Nagpal vs Sumedha Nagpal on 19 November, 2008

35. Having considered the submissions, this Court is exercising powers under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 in determining whether the Petitioners or the Respondent is to 14 (2001) 4 SCC 71 37/51 ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2025 22:27:01 ::: GP-1&13&2-2024-Jt.doc be appointed as Guardian of Master Yohan. In doing so the Court is exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in Gaurav Nagpal Vs. Sumedha Nagpal (supra), whilst considering the provisions of the Hindu Minority Act, 1956 held that the word "welfare" used in Section 13 of the Act has to be construed literally and must be taken in its widest sense. The moral and ethical welfare of the child must also weigh with the Court as well as his / her physical well being.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 203 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Nil Ratan Kundu & Anr vs Abhijit Kundu on 8 August, 2008

21. Ms. Abraham has submitted that this Court be pleased to decide interim guardianship under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 granting Petitioners interim guardianship and custody of Master Yohan. This will not only serve, but will enhance Yohan's welfare by ensuring a continuity of his bonds with his biological family, i.e. the Petitioners, by the present caregiver who holds his interim custody, i.e. the Respondent. She has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Smriti Madan Kansagra Vs. Perry Kansagra9 and Nil Ratan Kundu and Anr. Vs. Abhijit Kundu10.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 217 - C K Thakker - Full Document
1   2 3 Next