Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.51 seconds)Raj Rajendra Sardar Maloji Marsingh Rao ... vs Sri Shankar Saran And Ors on 30 April, 1962
10. We have therefore to take it that if Ext. P14 is an order of Court, it was an order passed by a competent court having jurisdiction to grant the custody of the children to the mother and permitting only access to the father. Nothing said in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Raj Rajendra Sardar Moloji Nar Singh Rao v. Shankar Saran, reported in AIR 19f.2 SC 1737 and in Viswanathan v. Rukn-ul-Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1 relied on by counsel for the 1st respondent militates against this view. In fact we do not find any question such as the one we are called upon to resolve being considered or decided in these decisions.
R. Viswanathan vs Rukn-Ul-Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid on 4 May, 1962
10. We have therefore to take it that if Ext. P14 is an order of Court, it was an order passed by a competent court having jurisdiction to grant the custody of the children to the mother and permitting only access to the father. Nothing said in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Raj Rajendra Sardar Moloji Nar Singh Rao v. Shankar Saran, reported in AIR 19f.2 SC 1737 and in Viswanathan v. Rukn-ul-Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1 relied on by counsel for the 1st respondent militates against this view. In fact we do not find any question such as the one we are called upon to resolve being considered or decided in these decisions.
Shankar Sitaram Sontakke And Another vs Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke And Others on 12 April, 1954
On the other hand, it is clear from the decisions of the Supreme Court in Shankar Sitaram v. Balkrishna Sitaram, reported in AIR 1954 SC 352 and Sailendra Narayan Bhanja Deo v. The State of Orissa, reported in AIR 1956 SC 346 that a decree passed on consent is as much binding upon the parties as a decree passed by invitum.
Sailendra Narayan Bhanj Deo vs Assistant Collector Of Agricultural ... on 15 March, 1955
On the other hand, it is clear from the decisions of the Supreme Court in Shankar Sitaram v. Balkrishna Sitaram, reported in AIR 1954 SC 352 and Sailendra Narayan Bhanja Deo v. The State of Orissa, reported in AIR 1956 SC 346 that a decree passed on consent is as much binding upon the parties as a decree passed by invitum.
Gohar Begam vs Suggi Alias Nazma Begam And Others on 27 August, 1959
"When an infant is brought before the Court by habeas corpus, if he be of an age to exercise a choice, the Court leaves him to elect where he will go. If he be not of that age, and a want of direction would only expose him to dangers or seductions, the Court must make an order for his being placed in the proper custody." The above passage was quoted with approval by the Supreme Court of India in Gohar Begum v. Suggi Begum, reported in AIR 1960 SC 93 a case under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After extracting the above passage and after also referring to Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. IX, Article 1201 at page 702 where there is the following statement:
S. Rama Iyer vs K.V. Nataraja Iyer on 28 November, 1947
In fact the courts in our country hare always exercised the power to direct under Section 491 in a fit case that the custody of an infant be delivered to the applicant: Sree Rama Iyer v. Nataraja Iyer, AIR 1948 Mad 294, Zara Bibi v. Abdul Razzak, (1910) 12 Bom LR 891 and Subbaswami Goundan v. Kamakshi Ammal, ILR 53 Mad 72=(AIR 1929 Mad 834). If the courts did not have this power, the remedy under Section 491 would in the case of infants often become infructuous."
Satwant Singh Sawhney vs D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport ... on 10 April, 1967
23. Counsel then relied on Articles 19 (1) (e) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Neither of these Articles compels a citizen of this country to reside and settle only within the territory of India. He is at perfect liberty to travel abroad and reside in any foreign country without prejudice to his right to return to this country at any time he chooses (See Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Damarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi reported in AIR 1967 SC 1836). In the case of a minor child it will ordinarily he left to the parent to decide where the minor child should reside, whether inside the territory of India or outside it. But circumstances can arise when this decision for the minor will have to he taken not by the parent but by Court. If in such a case the Court as parens patriae comes to the conclusion that it is necessary in the paramount interests of the minor to entrust it to the custody and care of one of its parents who is residing outside the territory of India it has full power to pass orders permitting the child to be removed out of India and we are unable to find anything in Article 19(1)(e) or 21 of the Constitution which abrogates to any extent the Court's jurisdiction in this respect.