G. Ponniah Asari vs Suppiah Asari And Ors. on 16 October, 1934
195 156 I.C. 480 and G.Ponniah Asari v. Suppiah Asari 68 M.L.J. 213 : A.I.R. 1935 : Mad. 363 are not at all applicable to the facts of the present case.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)Rosy Jacob vs Jacob A. Chakramakkal on 5 April, 1973
The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellants, in Rosy Jacob v. Jacob Chakramakkal is not of any help to the case of the appellant. That relates to the case of dispute between the father and mother and in the circumstances it is stated:
D. Rajaiah vs Dhanapal And Anr. on 21 December, 1984
Since the child is under the care and custody of the second respondent for a pretty long time and the child is only 13 years, we cannot get any useful assistance even if the wishes of the child are ascertained. The learned Counsel for the respondent herein submitted that this Court is not bound by the wishes of the minor child. The learned Counsel for the respondent would also submit that we cannot expect the child to say that he would come and live with his father in regard to the present state as he is living with the second respondent for a long time and it is for the Court to decide the question of welfare and interest of the minor in the circumstances of the case on the evidence available. The learned Counsel for the respondent drew my attention to the decision reported in D. Rajaish v. Dhanapal etc., 98 L.W. 135 wherein it was held as follows:
Section 6 in The Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890 [Entire Act]
1