Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)Section 29 in The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890 [Entire Act]
Nil Ratan Kundu & Anr vs Abhijit Kundu on 8 August, 2008
In Nil Ratan Kundu Vs. Abhijit Kundu (2008 (9)
SCC 413), another decision relied on by this Court in Biju's case
(supra), the Apex Court has held that, a Court while dealing with
custody cases, is neither bound by statutes nor by strict rules of
evidence or procedure nor by precedents. In selecting proper
guardian of a minor, the paramount consideration should be the
welfare and well-being of the child. In selecting a guardian, the
O.P.(FC)No.280/15 -20-
Court is exercising parens patriae jurisdiction and is expected,
nay bound, to give due weight to a 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 considerations.
Section 31 in The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
Section 33 in The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
Jai Prakash Khadria vs Shyam Sunder Agarwalla & Anr on 12 May, 2000
28. Later, in Jai Prakash Khadria v. Shyam Sunder
Agarwalla (2000 (6) SCC 598) the Apex Court has reiterated
that, the orders relating to custody of children are by the very
nature not final but are interlocutory in nature and subject to
modification at any future time upon proof of change of
circumstances requiring change of custody but such change in
custody must be proved to be in the paramount interest of the
child.
Rosy Jacob vs Jacob A. Chakramakkal on 5 April, 1973
30. Therefore, in an application seeking an order to
modify or vary an order relating to custody, the welfare and well-
O.P.(FC)No.280/15 -24-
being of the minor children should be the paramount
consideration of the Family Court, and not the rights of their
parents who are at loggerheads with each other. The Family
Court exercising parens patriae jurisdiction has to strike a just
and proper balance between the requirements of welfare of the
minor children and the rights of their respective parents over
them, keeping in mind the observation made by a three-Judge
Bench of the Apex Court in Rosy Jacob's case (supra), in a rather
curt language that, 'the children are not mere chattels; nor are
they mere play-things for their parents'.
Mausami Moitra Ganguli vs Jayanti Ganguli on 12 May, 2008
In Mausami Moitra Ganguli v. Jayant Ganguli
(2008 (7) SCC 673), a decision relied on by this Court in Biju's
case (supra), the Apex Court has held that, it is the welfare and
interest of the child and not the rights of the parents which is the
determining factor for deciding the question of custody.