Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (2.32 seconds)Section 25 in The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890 [Entire Act]
Harbans Singh vs Vidya Wanti on 28 August, 1959
In Harbans Singh's case (AIR 1960 Punj 372) a learned single Judge of the Punjab High Court took the view that where for the purpose of the minor being better looked after, his mother sent him to her real brother at C, where he was put into a school and where he was being properly looked after by the maternal uncle of the minor, he should be considered to be ordinarily residing at C. In that case, Mt. Nazir Begam's case (AIR 1938 Lah 313) was distinguished.
Section 6 in The Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890 [Entire Act]
Bhola Nath vs Sharda Devi on 23 September, 1953
He, inter alia, noticed Vimlabai's caw (AIR 1951 Nag 179), Ram Sarup's case (AIR 1952 All 79), Chandra Kishore's case (AIR 1955 All 611) and Smt. Kamla's case (AIR 1956 All 328) and observed as under (at p. 288 of AIR 1960 All):
The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890
Ram Sarup vs Chimman Lal And Ors. on 11 September, 1951
In that case, the view taken by the learned Judges in Lakshman v. Ganga Ram, AIR 1932 Bom 592 was dissented from and after following the observations made in Ram Sarup's case (AIR 1952 All 79) and noticing Smt Vimla Bai's case (AIR 1951 Nag 179), the learned Judge reached the conclusion that as the mother is actually residing at Roorkee and, therefore, her children would also be deemed to be residing at Roorkee.