Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.46 seconds)
Arun Kumar.R vs Anuja V.R on 12 April, 2023 cites

Rohith Thammana Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 July, 2022

As held in Rohith Thammana Gowda (supra), the wish or desire of the child shall not be the sole guiding factor to decide the custody of a child. Love and affection from both parents are required for proper upbringing of the child. It is true that the appellant in connection with his employment has to travel extensively, but he is prepared to take care of the child. His parents are also available to take care of the affairs of the child. We emphasise that while giving such temporary custody, the parent, grandparents and all concerned shall take extra care to ensure child's comfort. They shall interact with the child with love and affect, and avoid rebukings and insinuations against the other parent, which will infuse or sense of insecurity and aversion in the mind of the child. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the decree in O.P.(G&W) No.881 of 2015 12 Mat.Appeal No.870 of 2022 shall not stand in the way of giving overnight custody of the child to the appellant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 15 - C T Ravikumar - Full Document

Yashita Sahu vs The State Of Rajasthan on 20 January, 2020

In Yashita Sahu (supra) the Apex Court noticed that a child, especially a child of tender years requires the love, affection, company, and protection of both parents. This 9 Mat.Appeal No.870 of 2022 is not only the requirement of the child but is his/her basic human right. Just because the parents are at war with each other, does not mean that the child should be denied the care, affection, love or protection of any one of the two parents. A child is not an inanimate object which can be tossed from one parent to the other. Every separation and every re-union may have a traumatic and psychosomatic impact on the child. Therefore, it is to be ensured that the court weighs each and every circumstance very carefully before deciding how and in what manner the custody of the child should be shared between both parents. Even if the custody is given to one parent the other parent must have sufficient visitation rights to ensure that the child keeps in touch with the other parent and does not lose social, physical and psychological contact with any one of the two parents. It is only in extreme circumstances that one parent should be denied contact with the child. Reasons must be assigned if one parent is to be denied any visitation rights or contact with the child. Courts dealing with custody matters must while deciding issues of custody clearly define the nature, manner and specifics of the 10 Mat.Appeal No.870 of 2022 visitation rights. A child has a human right to have the love and affection of both parents and courts must pass orders ensuring that the child is not totally deprived of the love, affection and company of one of her/his parents.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 151 - D Gupta - Full Document

Vasudha Sethi vs Kiran V. Bhaskar on 12 January, 2022

In Vasudha Sethi and others v. Kiran V. Bhaskar and another [AIR 2022 SC 476] the Apex Court held that, whenever the court disturbs the custody of one parent, unless there are compelling reasons, the court will normally provide for visitation rights to the other parent. The reason is that the child needs the company of both parents. The orders for visitation rights are essentially passed for the welfare of minors and for the protection of their right of having the company of both parents. Such orders are not passed only for protecting the rights of the parents. xx xx xx The court cannot accept the submission that, while applying the welfare principle, the rights of the mother or father need to be protected. The consideration of the well-being and welfare of the child must get precedence over the individual or personal rights of the parents.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 30 - A Oka - Full Document

Rosy Jacob vs Jacob A. Chakramakkal on 5 April, 1973

In Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal [(1973) 1 SCC 840] the Apex Court held that all orders relating to the custody of the minor wards from their very nature must be considered to be temporary orders made in the existing circumstances. With the changed conditions and circumstances, including the passage of time, the Court is entitled to vary such orders if such variation is considered to be in the interest of the welfare of the wards. Orders relating to custody of wards even when based on consent are liable to be varied by the Court if the welfare of the wards demands variation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 304 - A Alagiriswami - Full Document
1