Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.32 seconds)Section 7 in The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890 [Entire Act]
The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890
Section 7 in The Family Courts Act, 1984 [Entire Act]
The Family Courts Act, 1984
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Dhanwanti Joshi vs Madhav Unde on 4 November, 1997
"40. In cases arising out of proceedings under the
Guardians and Wards Act, the jurisdiction of the Court
is determined by whether the minor ordinarily resides
within the area on which the court exercises such
jurisdiction. There is thus a significant difference
between the jurisdictional facts relevant to the exercise
of powers by a writ court on the one hand and a court
under the Guardian and Wards Act on the other.
Having said that we must make it clear that no matter
a court is exercising powers under the Guardian
and Wards Act it can choose to hold a summary
enquiry into the matter and pass appropriate orders
provided it is otherwise competent to entertain a
petition for custody of the minor under Section 9(1) of
the Act. This is clear from the decision of this Court
in Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde (1998) 1 SCC
112, which arose out of proceedings under the
Guardian and Wards Act. The following passage is in
this regard apposite:
Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw vs Arvand M. Dinshaw And Anr on 11 November, 1986
"30.We may here state that this Court in Elizabeth
Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw(1987) 1 SCC 42 while
dealing with a child removed by the father from USA
contrary to the custody orders of the US Court
directed that the child be sent back to USA to the
mother not only because of the principle of comity but
also because, on facts - which were independently
considered - it was in the interests of the child to be
sent back to the native State. There the removal of the
child by the father and the mother's application in
India were within six months. In that context, this
Court referred to H. (infants), In re (1966) 1 All ER
886 which case, as pointed out by us above has been
explained in L (Minors) In re (1974) 1 All ER 913, as a
case where the Court thought it fit to exercise its
summary jurisdiction in the interests of the child.
Smt. Surindar Kaur Sandhu vs Harbax Singh Sandhu & Anr on 11 April, 1984
India may not be a signatory to the aforesaid Hague
Conventions, but the underlying salutary principles
enunciated therein were adopted by the Supreme Court
in the case of Surinder Kaur v. Harbax Singh reported
as (1984) 3 SCC 698, wherein it was observed as
below:-
Mr. Paul Mohinder Gahun vs Mrs. Selina Gahun on 1 June, 2006
In Paul Mohinder Gahun v. Selina Gahun , a learned Single
Judge of Delhi High Court held in paras 21 and 32 as under :