Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 41 (0.26 seconds)The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890
Section 13 in The Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kirtikumar Maheshankar Joshi vs Pradipkumar Karunashanker Joshi on 4 May, 1992
In the case at hand, the father is the only natural guardian
12 G. Eva Mary Elezabath v. Jayaraj and Others 2005 SCC Online Mad 472
13 Kirtikumar Maheshankar Joshi v. Pradipkumar Karunashanker Joshi (1992) 3 SCC 573
23
alive and has neither abandoned nor neglected the child. Only
due to the peculiar circumstances of the case, the child was taken
care of by the appellants. Therefore, the cases cited by the
appellants are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to
deny the custody of the child to the father.
Gaurav Nagpal vs Sumedha Nagpal on 19 November, 2008
50. When the court is confronted with conflicting demands made by the
parents, each time it has to justify the demands. The court has not only to
look at the issue on legalistic basis, in such matters human angles are
relevant for deciding those issues. The court then does not give emphasis
10 Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2009) 1 SCC 42
21
on what the parties say, it has to exercise a jurisdiction which is aimed at
the welfare of the minor.
Dr. (Mrs.) Veena Kapoor vs Shri Varinder Kumar Kapoor on 6 April, 1981
12. Countering this contention, the learned counsel for
respondent No.1 submitted that in the given facts of the case, the
1 Dr. Veena Kapoor v. Varinder Kumar Kapoor (1981) 3 SCC 92
2 Sarita Sharma v. Sushil Sharma (2000) 3 SCC 14
9
High Court has the extraordinary power to exercise the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the
High Court was right in allowing the habeas corpus petition. The
learned counsel has placed reliance on Gohar Begum3 and.
Manju Malini Sheshachalam4. Contention of respondent No.1 is
that as per Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,
respondent No.1, being the father, is the natural guardian and the
appellants have no authority to retain the custody of the child and
the refusal to hand over the custody amounts to illegal detention
of the child and therefore, the writ of habeas corpus was the
proper remedy available to him to seek redressal.
Sarita Sharma vs Sushil Sharma on 16 February, 2000
59. The Court may also direct repatriation of the minor child to the country
from where he/she may have been removed by a parent or other person; as
was directed by this Court in Ravi Chandran (2010) 1 SCC 174 and Shilpa
Aggarwal (2010) 1 SCC 591 cases or refuse to do so as was the position in
Sarita Sharma case (2000) 3 SCC 14. What is important is that so long as
the alleged detenu is within the jurisdiction of the High Court no question of
its competence to pass appropriate orders arises. The writ court’s
jurisdiction to make appropriate orders regarding custody arises no sooner
it is found that the alleged detenu is within its territorial jurisdiction.”
G. Eva Mary Elezabath vs Jayaraj, The Sub-Inspector Of Police, ... on 6 July, 2005
In the case at hand, the father is the only natural guardian
12 G. Eva Mary Elezabath v. Jayaraj and Others 2005 SCC Online Mad 472
13 Kirtikumar Maheshankar Joshi v. Pradipkumar Karunashanker Joshi (1992) 3 SCC 573
23
alive and has neither abandoned nor neglected the child. Only
due to the peculiar circumstances of the case, the child was taken
care of by the appellants. Therefore, the cases cited by the
appellants are distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied to
deny the custody of the child to the father.
Nil Ratan Kundu & Anr vs Abhijit Kundu on 8 August, 2008
9 Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu, (2008) 9 SCC 413