Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 53 (0.34 seconds)Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890 [Entire Act]
Gaurav Nagpal vs Sumedha Nagpal on 19 November, 2008
41. The principles in relation to custody of a minor child again came up for consideration in Gaurav Nagpal Vs. Sumedha Nagpal26, and it was reiterated that the paramount consideration in such matters would be 'welfare of the child' and not rights of parents under a statute for the time being in force. The court would have to give due weightage to the child's ordinary comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development, and favourable surroundings but over and above physical comfort, moral and ethical values would also have to be given importance. It was stated thus :-
Anjali Kapoor vs Rajiv Baijal on 17 April, 2009
22. It is true that under the 1890 Act, the father is the guardian of the minor child until he is found unfit to be a guardian of the minor. In deciding such question, this Court consistently held that the welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration and such a question cannot be decided merely on the basis of the rights of the parties under the law. This principle is reiterated in Anjali Kapoor v. Rajiv Baijal5.
The Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw vs Arvand M. Dinshaw And Anr on 11 November, 1986
In Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw18, this Court has observed that whenever a question arises before court pertaining to the custody of the minor child, the matter is to be decided not on consideration of the legal rights of the parties but on the sole and predominant criterion of what would best serve the interest and welfare of the child.
Sumedha Nagpal vs State Of Delhi And Ors. on 3 March, 2000
15. Under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the father is the guardian of the minor child until he is found unfit to be the guardian of the minor female child. In deciding such questions, the welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration and such a question cannot be decided merely based upon the rights of the parties under the law. (See Sumedha Nagpal v. State of Delhi16 (SCC p. 747, paras 2 & 5).
Shyamrao Maroti Korwate vs Deepak Kisanrao Tekam on 14 September, 2010
23. The question of a claim raised by maternal grand-father for guardianship of a minor child whose mother had died after giving birth to the child was subject matter of consideration in Shyamrao Maroti Karwate Vs. Deepak Kisanrao Tekham25, and reiterating that in the matter of custody of a minor child, paramount consideration is welfare of minor and not rights of parents or relatives, it was held that the appointment of the maternal grand-father as guardian, was justified.