Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)
Sri Ramit Kumar Dey vs Smt. Rituparna Dey (Singha) And Another on 24 January, 2019 cites

Athar Hussain vs Syed Siraj Ahmed & Ors on 5 January, 2010

43. Rosy Jacob (supra), which was also referred to in Athar Hussain (supra), was decided clearly on considerations as to custody under Section 25 of the 1890 Act. Paragraph no. 15 of the said judgment, which has been particularly relied on by the petitioner, lays down that the object and purpose of Section 25 is to ensure the welfare of the minor or, which necessarily involves due protection of the right of his guardian to properly look after the ward's health, maintenance and education. Hyper‐technicalities, it was held, should not be allowed to deprive the guardian the necessary assistance from the court in 15 effectively discharging his duties and obligations towards his ward so as to promote the latter's welfare. It was further held by the Supreme Court in paragraph no. 12 of the cited judgment that the Supreme Court was unable to accede to the respondent's suggestion that his application (for custody) should be considered to have been preferred for appointing or declaring him as a guardian. Such proposition is diametrically opposite to the contention of the petitioner in the instant case and as such, cannot come to the aid of the petitioner in any manner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 52 - T Chatterjee - Full Document
1   2 Next