Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.73 seconds)Gohar Begam vs Suggi Alias Nazma Begam And Others on 27 August, 1959
In this case, learned Counsel Mr. Saurin Shah appearing for applicant-K. Chandrasheekhar, grandfather of minor children Yash and Riddhi relying upon two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court : (1) in the case of Gohar Begam v. Suggi @ Nazma Begam, reported in AIR 1960 SC 93 and (2) in the case of Sheela Barse and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., reported in AIR 1986 SC 1773, submitted that the custody of minor children Yash and Riddhi, who are at present in Jamnagar Jail along with accused-Sushilaben be handed over to the applicant. This was vehemently objected to by learned Senior Advocate, Shri Nanavati appearing for accused-Sushilaben, grandmother i.e. mother-in-law of deceased-Sandhya on several grounds. His main objection was that this Court, in criminal proceedings, cannot entertain such request and pass the order regarding custody of minor children. Mr. Nanavati has taken me through all relevant provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, in support of his submissions. However, I have refrained myself from expressing any opinion on it because any opinion expressed by this Court is likely to come in the way of parties when parties approached the proper forum for the custody of minor children.
Sheela Barse & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 August, 1986
In this case, learned Counsel Mr. Saurin Shah appearing for applicant-K. Chandrasheekhar, grandfather of minor children Yash and Riddhi relying upon two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court : (1) in the case of Gohar Begam v. Suggi @ Nazma Begam, reported in AIR 1960 SC 93 and (2) in the case of Sheela Barse and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., reported in AIR 1986 SC 1773, submitted that the custody of minor children Yash and Riddhi, who are at present in Jamnagar Jail along with accused-Sushilaben be handed over to the applicant. This was vehemently objected to by learned Senior Advocate, Shri Nanavati appearing for accused-Sushilaben, grandmother i.e. mother-in-law of deceased-Sandhya on several grounds. His main objection was that this Court, in criminal proceedings, cannot entertain such request and pass the order regarding custody of minor children. Mr. Nanavati has taken me through all relevant provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, in support of his submissions. However, I have refrained myself from expressing any opinion on it because any opinion expressed by this Court is likely to come in the way of parties when parties approached the proper forum for the custody of minor children.
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
1