Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.34 seconds)The Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956
Section 13 in The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890 [Entire Act]
Gaurav Nagpal vs Sumedha Nagpal on 19 November, 2008
27. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the matter of Gaurav Nagpal vs. Sumedh
Nagpal reported in (2009) 1 SCC 42, that was a matter of custody of
minor under 'The Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956'. In
that case child was staying with father and mother was seeking
custody. Her application was allowed by the District Court. Being
aggrieved he preferred appeal in the High Court, but it was
dismissed. Thereafter, he approached the Supreme Court but he
was unsuccessful. Reliance is placed on paragraph Nos.40 and 47 to
51 of the judgment. It is relevant to quote following paragraphs :
Smt. Surindar Kaur Sandhu vs Harbax Singh Sandhu & Anr on 11 April, 1984
In Surinder Kaur Sandhu (Smt.) v. Harbax Singh Sandhu [1984]3 SCC698,this
Court held that Section 6 of the Act constitutes father as a natural guardian of a
minor son. But that provision cannot supersede the paramount consideration as to
what is conducive to the welfare of the minor.
Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw vs Arvand M. Dinshaw And Anr on 11 November, 1986
[See also Elizabeth Dinshaw (Mrs.) v.
Arvand M. Dinshaw (1987) 1 SCC 42; Chandrakala Menon (Mrs.)v.VipinMenon(Capt),
(1993)2SCC6 .
Gaytri Bajaj vs Jiten Bhalla on 5 October, 2012
29. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the matter of Gayatri Bajaj vs. Jiten Bhalla reported in
(2012) 12 SCC 478. In that case interaction was conducted by the
Supreme Court with minor children who were staying with father.
Following paragraph is relevant :
Section 17 in The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890 [Entire Act]
Akhtar Begum vs Jamshed Munir on 5 April, 1978
30. Learned counsel Mr.Mhase for the respondent relied on the
judgment of Delhi High Court in the matter of Smt.Akhtar Begum
vs. Jamshed Munir reported in AIR 1979 Delhi 67 and taken me
through paragraph Nos.12 and 15. The principles are based upon
the concept of personal law. The judgment can be of no avail to the
respondent. The judgment cited above by the appellant need to be
preferred.
Neethu B. @ Neethu Baby Mathew vs Rajesh Kumar on 14 January, 2020
28. In the present case also appellant has flouted interim orders
passed by this Court. But that will not disentitle her to retain
custody of the child. On the legalistic basis though merits of the
matter tilt in the favour of respondent, considering minor's ordinary
contentment, health and favourable surroundings, this Court is
inclined to decide in favour of the appellant. When the personal law
is pitted with comfort and welfare of the child, latter would have
upper hand. I am fortified in my view by latest rendition of the
Supreme Court in the matter of Neethu vs. Rajesh Kumar
reported in MANU/SC/0920/2025. In that case mother was denied
custody by the High Court. Mother filed a Review Petition which
was allowed by the Supreme Court. In that case minor was found to
have been in deteriorating mental health. Following is the relevant
paragraph :
1