Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.85 seconds)
Rohan Rajesh Kothari Thro Poa Rajesh S. ... vs State Of Gujarat on 5 January, 2024 cites

Lahari Sakhamuri vs Sobhan Kodali on 15 March, 2019

12. Whether a writ of Habeas Corpus is maintainable in a custody claim. The issue is no more res integra on account of authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Yashita Sahu (supra), where in Para-10, by referring to previous decision of the Apex Court in Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw (supra), Nithya Anand Raghavan (supra) and Lahari Sakhamuri (supra) held that writ would be maintainable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 85 - A Rastogi - Full Document

Shilpa Aggarwal vs Aviral Mittal & Anr on 9 December, 2009

6.24 Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that it is no longer res integra that even if orders of custody are passed by the Native Country after the child is brought in India, even in that eventuality, keeping in mind the interest and welfare of the child and the nationality of the child, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other Courts have repatriated the minor child back to their Native Country. The Petitioner seeks reliance upon the pronouncements of Shilpa Agarwal Vs Aviral Mittal reported in (2010) 1 SCC 592, Surya Vadanan Vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. reported in (2015) 5 SCC 450, Lahari Sakhamuri Vs Sobhan Kodali reported in (2019) 7 SCC 311, Yashita Sahu Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in (2020) 3 SCC 67.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 44 - A Kabir - Full Document

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

12. Whether a writ of Habeas Corpus is maintainable in a custody claim. The issue is no more res integra on account of authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Yashita Sahu (supra), where in Para-10, by referring to previous decision of the Apex Court in Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw (supra), Nithya Anand Raghavan (supra) and Lahari Sakhamuri (supra) held that writ would be maintainable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 151 - D Gupta - Full Document

Nilanjan Bhattacharya vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 September, 2020

6.19 Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yashita Sahu Vs State of Rajasthan reported in (2020) 3 SCC 67 and also Nilanjan Bhattacharya Vs State of Karnataka reported in (2020) SCC OnLine SC 928 wherein in similar set of circumstances, children, who were US citizens, have been repatriated back to their Native Country keeping in mind the Principle of Welfare of the Child and also the Principle of Comity of Courts and also the fact that the children were US Nationals.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Robert Louis Walker vs Herbert Peter Walker & Ors on 11 September, 2018

23. As to the "secondary" nature of material considerations, Hardy Boys, J. of the New Zealand Court said in Walker vs. Walker & Harrison (See 1981 N.Z.Recent Law 257) (cited by British Law Commission, working Paper No. 96 Para 6.10) "Welfare is an all-encompassing word. It includes material welfare, both in the sense of adequacy of resources to provide a pleasant home and a comfortable standard of living and in the sense of an adequacy of care to ensure that good health and due personal pride are maintained. However, while material considerations have their place they are secondary matters. More important are the stability and the security, the loving and understanding care and guidance, the warm and compassionate relationships, that are essential for the full development of the child's own character, personality and talents"
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 15 - G S Patel - Full Document
1   2 Next