Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.68 seconds)The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Lahari Sakhamuri vs Sobhan Kodali on 15 March, 2019
19. We are of the considered view that the doctrine of
comity of courts is a very healthy doctrine. If courts in
different jurisdictions do not respect the orders passed by
each other it will lead to contradictory orders being passed
in different jurisdictions. No hard-and-fast guidelines can
be laid down in this regard and each case has to be
decided on its own facts. We may, however, again reiterate
that the welfare of the child will always remain the
paramount consideration.
V.Ravi Chandran vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 November, 2009
In V. Ravi
Chandran (2) v. Union of India, this Court observed: (SCC
pp. 196-97, paras 32 & 35-37)
"32. Admittedly, Adithya is an American citizen, born and
brought up in the United States of America. He has spent
his initial years there. The natural habitat of Adithya is in
the United States of America. As a matter of fact, keeping in
view the welfare and happiness of the child and in his best
interests, the parties have obtained a series of consent
orders concerning his custody/parenting rights,
maintenance, etc. from the competent courts of jurisdiction
in America. ...
Nithya Anand Raghavan vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 3 July, 2017
"10. It is too late in the day to urge that a writ of habeas
corpus is not maintainable if the child is in the custody of
another parent. The law in this regard has developed a lot
over a period of time but now it is a settled position that the
court can invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction for the
best interest of the child. This has been done in Elizabeth
Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw, Nithya Anand Raghavan
v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan
Kodali among others. In all these cases, the writ petitions
were entertained. Therefore, we reject the contention of the
Page 56 of 70
Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 18 22:23:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/17368/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
appellant wife that the writ petition before the High Court of
Rajasthan was not maintainable.
Arathi Bandi vs Bandi Jagadrakshaka Rao & Ors on 16 July, 2013
H) In the case of Arathi Bandi v. Bandi
Jagadrakshaka Rao (2013), a 3 year old male child
was brought from the USA to India by the mother in
contravention of an order passed by a Court in the
USA and the Father sought custody of male child by
filing a writ petition of habeas corpus, wherein, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
Surya Vadanan vs State Of Tamilnadu & Ors on 27 February, 2015
I) In the case of Surya Vadanan v. State of Tamil
Nadu (2015), 10 year old and 6 year old female
children was brought from the UK to India by the
mother in contravention of an order passed by a
Court in the USA and the father sought custody of
2 female child by filing a writ petition of habeas
corpus, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held as under:
Yashita Sahu vs The State Of Rajasthan on 20 January, 2020
K) In the case of Yasita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan
(2020), 3 year old female child was brought from
the USA to India by the mother in contravention of
an order passed by a court in the USA and father
sought custody of child by filing a writ petition of
habeas corpus, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held as under:
Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw vs Arvand M. Dinshaw And Anr on 11 November, 1986
"10. It is too late in the day to urge that a writ of habeas
corpus is not maintainable if the child is in the custody of
another parent. The law in this regard has developed a lot
over a period of time but now it is a settled position that the
court can invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction for the
best interest of the child. This has been done in Elizabeth
Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw, Nithya Anand Raghavan
v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan
Kodali among others. In all these cases, the writ petitions
were entertained. Therefore, we reject the contention of the
Page 56 of 70
Uploaded by MR.MEHULKUMAR.B. DESAI(HCD0075) on Wed Mar 18 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 18 22:23:11 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/17368/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/03/2026
undefined
appellant wife that the writ petition before the High Court of
Rajasthan was not maintainable.
Nilanjan Bhattacharya vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 September, 2020
L) In the case of Nilanjan Bhattacharya v. State of
Karnataka (2020), 3 and half year old child was
brought from the USA to India by the mother in
contravention of an order passed by a Court in the
USA and father sought custody of child by filing a
writ petition of habeas corpus, wherein, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under: