Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.15 seconds)The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890
Bai Tara vs Mohanlal Lallubhai on 16 March, 1922
In Bai Tara v. Mohanlal Lallubhai, 24 Bom LR 779 : (AIR 1922 Bom 405) the father applied for getting the custody of his minor son from his wife who had been living separate from him and had the custody of the boy. The father had married again and the boy was seven years old at the time when the father made the application. This Court taking into consideration the fact that the father had married again, came to the conclusion that the seven-year-old boy would be much better off living with his mother than with his father. It was further observed,t hat "the step-mother cannot be expected to be very much interested in his welfare, and the uncles and any members of the prior generation who may be living in the house will also not be likely to give this small boy the attention and sympathy which he naturally requires." In the present case also, according to the husband's deposition, thought his father and mother are living separately from him, all the members of the family are living in one house and his youngest brother was aged 2 1/2 years only. In my view, in a large family like that of the respondent, the bringing up of Benibai is not likely to be well looked after, especially now that the husband has taken a second wife.
Saraswatibai Shripad Ved vs Shripad Vasanji Ved on 11 October, 1940
In Sarawatibai Shripad v. Shripad Vasanji, 43 Bom Lr 79 : (AIR 1941 Bom 103), it was held that in the mater of the custody of a minor child, the paramount consideration is the interest of the child rather than the rights of the parents and in the case of a minor child of tender years, the proper person to whom the custody of the child should be given is the natural mother and she should be preferred to the father, as it is impossible to find any adequate substitute for the love and care of the natural mother. It was observed by Sir John Beaumont in that case that the natural mother was the proper person to have the custody of the child, and there was no evidence before the Court to justify the conclusion that she was not a proper person to have that custody though the evidence in that case showed that the mother had recovered from tuberculosis. In this case also it is not suggested that the mother would be unable to take care of the daughter in case she was handed over to the applicant. The apprehension expressed in the written statement was that the mother was likely to re-marry. But as I have already pointed out, the mother has categorically stated on oath that she has no wish to re-marry.
The Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956
1