Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)Kaushaliya vs Jodha Ram on 25 November, 2019
11. The contention of the petitioners is stoutly
resisted by the learned counsel for the
respondent, who argued that in the light of
decision in Kaushaliya v. Jodha Ram and Others
[2020 (1) KHC 496 (SC)] the Supreme Court has
OP (FC).No.741 OF 2019
9
declared the law that it is always open to the
parties to explore the possibility of an overall
amicable settlement, including the disputes
which are not the subject matter of the
proceedings before the Court.
Yashita Sahu vs The State Of Rajasthan on 20 January, 2020
The Honourable Supreme Court in a
recent decision in Yashita Sahu v. State of
Rajasthan and Others [(2020) SCC online SC 50]
has held that both the parents and the child
have the right to be in the custody of each other.
We do not find any circumstances to interfere
with Ext.P12 order passed by the Family Court, in
exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Ultimately, Ext.P12 is passed to enforce Ext.P2,
and cannot be found fault with. We do not find
OP (FC).No.741 OF 2019
12
any reason to interfere with Ext.P12 order
passed by the Family Court. The O.P.(FC) is
without any merit and is hence, dismissed.
Section 26 in The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890 [Entire Act]
The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890
Dr. Amit Kumar vs Dr. Sonila on 26 October, 2018
14. The above view has been taken in light of
the decisions of the Supreme Court in Amit
Kumar v. Sonila and Others AIR 2018 SC 53,
where it is held that there is no necessity for the
parties to have a separate agreement in respect
of the child.
Fathimabi M vs Muhammed Ashraff on 12 December, 2019
15. In light of Ext.P2 settlement agreement,
the parties have agreed to share the custody of
the child and the judgment debtors cannot resile
or wriggle out of the terms of agreement. The
judgment debtor 1 has without prior permission
of the Court, as provided under Section 26 of the
Guardian and Wards Act and as held by this
OP (FC).No.741 OF 2019
11
Court in Fathimabi.M v. Muhammed Ashraf [2020
(1) KHC 363 (DB) illegally removed the child to
UAE. The judgment debtors cannot be
permitted to take advantage of their own
wrong. They are bound to abide by Ext.P2
agreement.
Teena M.Ansari vs Rinoj Eappen on 9 December, 2019
13. It is well settled as held in the decision of
this Court in Teena M.Ansari v. Rinu Eappen [2019
(4) KHC 593] that, the mediation agreement,
having been signed and acted upon, is binding
on the parties. After entering into a settlement
through the process of mediation and after the
court as well as the parties have acted upon the
OP (FC).No.741 OF 2019
10
settlement, one of the parties cannot be
permitted to unilaterally withdraw from the
same.
1