Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.24 seconds)The Juvenile Justice Act, 1986
Chandrakala Menon (Mrs) And Anr. vs Vipin Menon (Capt.) And Anr. on 14 January, 1993
(a) Chandrakala Menon (Mrs.) and another v. Vipin Menon (Capt.) and another, (1993) 2 SCC 6.
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 361 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Mahmood Hasan & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 7 January, 1997
7. After the aforesaid, being aggrieved by the order dated dated 10.09.2025 passed by this Court related to production of minor/detenue, the opposite party No. 4 again approached the Hon'ble Apex Court by means of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 11954 of 2025 (Sajjad Hasan Masood and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors.), which was finally decided the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 22.09.2025. The order dated 22.09.2025 reads as under:-
Tejaswini Gaud vs Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari on 6 May, 2019
2. That it is trite law, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nirmala v. Kulwant Singh (2024) 10 SCC 595 and Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari (2019) 7 SCC 42, that the writ of habeas corpus can only be invoked in custody disputes where the child is shown to be under illegal detention or confinement. Where custody is lawful, recognized, and supported by competent judicial or statutory authority, the remedy of habeas corpus does not lie, and the ordinary remedy under the Guardians and Wards Act or appeal therefrom is the proper course of law.
Ruchi Majoo vs Sanjeev Majoo on 13 May, 2011
9. The territorial jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow is also in serious doubt. The minor child has been continuously residing with the father in Hooghly, West Bengal, since July 2024, and is admitted in Dreamland School there. Article 226 jurisdiction can only be exercised where the person or subject matter of detention is within territorial reach. The ratio of Ruchi Majoo (supra) reinforces that unless the detenue is within territorial jurisdiction, the writ cannot be entertained.
Mausami Moitra Ganguli vs Jayanti Ganguli on 12 May, 2008
In Mausami Moitra Ganguli v. Jayant Ganguli (2008) 7 SCC 673, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that where a detailed enquiry is necessary, the writ court must decline jurisdiction and direct parties to approach the proper guardianship forum.