Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 25 in The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890 [Entire Act]
Poonam Datta vs Krishanlal Datta And Ors. on 11 October, 1988
Therefore, the decision in Poonam Datta's case is distinguishable.
Kiran Rani vs Krishan Kumar on 1 March, 1994
8. This Court in Kiran Rani v. Krishan Kumar 1994 (2) Latest Judicial Reports 398 held that the welfare of the minor shall be the main consideration. That was a case where Kiran Rani the petitioner moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of writ of habeas corpus for the recovery of infant child from the custody of the respondents namely, her-husband and his relations. The child was only one year old. The respondents opposed this on the grounds that a divorce deed has been executed that all the matters had been settled between them and that the child was also handed over to the respondents as per the agreement. Even though this Court observed that in matters concerning the custody of minor, the paramount consideration will be welfare of the child, taking into consideration the tender age of the child and the condition of the mother, the respondent-husband was directed to give the child to the mother. This Court also observed that the interest of the minor in question cannot be decided by this Court since it required evidence and, therefore, directed that the petitioner before the High Court shall file a petition within one month under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act.
S. Rama Iyer vs K.V. Nataraja Iyer on 28 November, 1947
15. Similarly the decision of the Madras High Court cited supra in Rama Iyer's case is also not applicable to the facts of this case since that Court found that in spite of the fact that minor child was put in the School and the costs of education was agreed to be borne by the father, the child ran away from the school to his grandfather and refused to live with the father. The High Court found that the truancy of the boy, his disinclination to study and his aversion to his father were the result of the pernicious influence of his maternal grandparents, which is not the case here.
Dr. (Mrs.) Veena Kapoor vs Shri Varinder Kumar Kapoor on 6 April, 1981
Further, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: in Veena Kapoor's case cited supra, the decision of the Madras High Court in this regard cannot be followed, even though I agree with that decision to the extent that the existence of the remedy under the Guardian and Wards Act will not be a bar to the filing of a petition for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus.
Charan Kaur vs Ujagar Singh on 23 March, 1994
7. The learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon decision of this Court in Charan Kaur v. Ujagar Singh, 1994 (2) Latest Judicial Reports 659. In that case a widow (Charan Kaur) filed a petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act for the custody of her three minor children from the custody of their grandfather. The respondents resisted the petition contending that the widow had left the house after giving in writing that she left the children under the care of the respondent since she had no love and affection from them. The trial Court dismissed the petition and on appeal this Court, taking note of the fact that the widow had, shortly after the death of her husband, left the house of her father-in-law leaving three minor children after executing a written document stating that she had no love and affection for them, that she did not take care of the children, that the minor children were already getting proper care and were also being given education, that the widow was working at a different place from her residence and therefore, she would not have much time to devote to her children, that for nine years she had not made any attempt to see her children in the school, and also holding that the welfare of the children will be better taken care of if they continued to stay with the respondent, dismissed the appeal.
Pricella Prim Widow vs Bashir Masih on 5 October, 1994
In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the decision of this Court in Pricella Prim v. Bashir Masih 1995 (1) Chandigarh Criminal Cases 82 (HC). That was also a petition by a lady who prayed for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for securing the custody of her son aged about 10 years, who was stated to be in illegal custody of his paternal uncle and sister (the respondents). This Court found that the child has been living with the respondents since 1988 (for over five years) that the talk which the Hon'ble Judge had with the minor revealed that the minor was fully aware of the surroundings and wished to remain with the respondents, and that though the welfare of the minor has to be primarily taken into consideration, the same was not possible to be gone into in those proceedings. The Court also observed that the right of the parties to the custody of the minor child is not the determining factor as it is the welfare of the child which is the primary concern. So, holding, the petition was dismissed by this Court leaving it open to the petitioner to seek the custody of the child under the Guardian and Wards Act.
1