Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.22 seconds)The Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956
Rajiv Bhatia vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 9 September, 1999
In Rajiv Bhatia vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others6, the habeas corpus petition was filed by the mother of a girl child, alleging that her daughter was in illegal custody of her husband's elder brother. The elder brother relied on an adoption deed. The plea taken by the mother in the Supreme Court that it was a fraudulent document. In the given facts, Supreme Court held that the High Court in writ jurisdiction was not entitled to examine the legality of the deed of adoption and then come to a conclusion one way or the other with regard to the custody of the child.
Sheoli Hati vs Somnath Das on 11 July, 2019
23. Paramount consideration regarding custody or other issues pertaining to a child is ''welfare of the child'. It is not the welfare of the father, nor welfare of the mother or guardian. It is the welfare of the minor and minor alone, irrespective of the claims of the parties to the custody. (Refer- Sheoli Hati vs Somnath Das8)
Nil Ratan Kundu & Anr vs Abhijit Kundu on 8 August, 2008
In Nil Ratan Kundu vs. Abhijit Kundu11, Supreme Court held that the paramount consideration in custody of the child is welfare of the minor and not the legal right of the particular party. Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, cannot supersede the dominant consideration as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor child. The custody cases cannot be decided on documents, oral evidence or proceeds without reference to "human touch". The human touch is the primary consideration for the welfare of the minor, since other materials may be created either by the parties themselves or on the advice of counsels to suit their convenience.
Mausami Moitra Ganguli vs Jayanti Ganguli on 12 May, 2008
26. A court of law should keep in mind relevant statutes and the rights flowing therefrom. But such cases cannot be decided solely by interpreting legal provisions. A Court while dealing in such matters is neither bound by the statute nor by strict rules of evidence or procedure nor by the precedents. In selecting proper guardian of a minor the court is exercising parens patriae jurisdiction and is expected and bound to given due weight to child's ordinary comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favourable surroundings. But over and above physical comforts, moral and ethical values cannot be ignored. They are equally, or even more important, essential and indispensable consideration. If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference or judgment, the court must consider such preference as well, though the final decision should rest with the Court as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor. (Refer: Mausami Moitra Ganguli vs. Jayanti Ganguli12)
Rosy Jacob vs Jacob A. Chakramakkal on 5 April, 1973
In Rosy Jacob vs. Jacob A. Chakramakkal15 Supreme Court held that the principle on which the court should decide the fitness of the guardian mainly depends on two factors: (i) the father's fitness or otherwise to be the guardian, and (ii) the interests of the minors. The children are not mere chattels; nor are they mere play-things for their parents. Absolute right of parents over the destinies and the lives of their (minor) children has, in the modern changed social conditions, yielded to the considerations of their welfare as human beings so that they may grow up in a normal balanced manner to be useful members of the society.
Gohar Begam vs Suggi Alias Nazma Begam And Others on 27 August, 1959
In Gohar Begum vs. Suggi @ Nazma Begum and others3, the Supreme Court in the matter of custody by the unwed mother of her illegitimate child had directed that the person detaining the child had no legal right to the custody and her refusal to make over the child to the mother resulted in an illegal detention of the child. The Court held that the fact that the mother had a right to take remedy under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, is no justification for denying her right of seeking legal custody, being the natural guardian, she is entitled to maintain the writ petition. The Court held that the dispute as to the paternity of the child is irrelevant. (Refer- Syed Saleemudding Versus Dr. Ruksana and other4)