Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.33 seconds)Section 13 in The Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890
Section 6 in The Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Mausami Moitra Ganguli vs Jayanti Ganguli on 12 May, 2008
45. Without going into the merits of the case and
conscious of the paramount requirement of taking the best
interest and welfare of the child into consideration, as delineated
in the afore-quoted judgments, and also bearing in mind the dicta
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mausami Moitra Ganguli v.
Jayant Ganguli, (2008) 7 SCC 673, wherein it was held that it is
the welfare and interest of the child and not the rights of the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.189 of 2022 dt.01-07-2022
33/34
parents which is the determining factor for deciding the question
of custody. The question of welfare of the child has to be
considered in the context of the facts of each case and decided
cases on the issue may not be appropriate to be considered as
binding precedents. (emphasis supplied).
Kanu Sanyal vs District Magistrate, Darjeeijng & Ors on 11 September, 1973
'44. The present appeal emanates from a petition seek-
ing a writ of habeas corpus for the production and cus-
tody of a minor child. This Court in Kanu Sanyal v. Dis-
trict Magistrate, Darjeeling [Kanu Sanyal v. District
Magistrate, Darjeeling, (1973) 2 SCC 674 : 1973 SCC
(Cri) 980], has held that habeas corpus was essentially
a procedural writ dealing with machinery of justice. The
object underlying the writ was to secure the release of a
person who is illegally deprived of his liberty.
Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw vs Arvand M. Dinshaw And Anr on 11 November, 1986
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Elizabeth
Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw and Anr., AIR 1987 SC 3, it
was held that whenever a question arises before a Court pertaining
to the custody of a minor child, the matter is to be decided not on
consideration of the legal rights of the parties but on the sole and
predominant criteria of what would best serve the interest and
welfare of the minor.
Gaurav Nagpal vs Sumedha Nagpal on 19 November, 2008
In section 13, the word 'welfare' has to be
construed literally and taken in its widest sense as per the
mandate of laws laid down by the Apex Court in Gaurav Nagpal
Vs. Sumedha Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42, the moral and ethical
welfare of child must also weigh along with physical well being.
Syed Saleemuddin vs Dr.Rukhsana & Ors on 19 April, 2001
In Syed Saleemuddin v. Dr. Rukhsana, 2001 (5)
SCC 247 affirming the principle held that in an application for
seeking 'habeas corpus' for custody of minor child, the court is to
ascertain whether the custody of the children can be said to be
unlawful or illegal and whether the welfare of the children requires
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.189 of 2022 dt.01-07-2022
18/34
that present custody should be changed and the children should be
left in care and custody of somebody else. The Apex Court
reiterated the principle that in a matter of custody of a child, the
welfare of child is of paramount consideration of the Court.
Smt. G.S.S. Sitara vs The State Of Bihar Through Home ... on 12 April, 2022
30. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. G.S.S.
Sitara Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2022 (3) BLJ 274 has also
after exhaustively dealing with the peculiar facts of the said case
has held that it is not the statutory provision which would bind the
court under all circumstances to hand over the custody of the
minor child. The Court is required to settle the right giving way to
the background consideration of the welfare of the child on the
touchstone of principle of parens patriae jurisdiction as the
minor is within the jurisdiction of the Court.