Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.37 seconds)Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 13 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mrs. S.K. Burke vs T.C.W. Skipp on 6 September, 1923
Ormerod L.J.
pointed out in S vs. W [(1981) 11 Fam.Law 21 (82) {CA)] that
"the status quo argument depends
for its strength wholly and
entirely on whether the status quo
is satisfactory or not, the more
satisfactory the status quo, the
stronger the argument for not
interfering. The less satisfactory
the status quo, the less one
requires before deciding to
change".
Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw vs Arvand M. Dinshaw And Anr on 11 November, 1986
We may here state that this Court in Mrs. Elizabeth
Dinshaw vs. Arvand M. Dinshaw & Another (1987 Z(1) SCC 42),
while dealing with a child removed by the father from USA
contrary to the custody orders of the US Court directed that
the child be sent back to USA to the mother not only because
of the principle of comity but also because, on facts, -
which were independently considered - it was in the
interests of the child to be sent back to the native state.
There the removal of the child by the father and the
mother's application in India were within six months. In
that context, this Court referred to ReH. (infants), 1966
(1) All ER 886 (CA) which case, as pointed out by us above
has been explained in ReL (1974 (1) ALL ER 913) as a case
where the Court thought it fit to exercise its summary
Jurisdiction in the interests of the child.
Satya vs Teja Singh on 1 October, 1974
The said Bhagyawanti also filed petition No.101/81 in the
District Court, Nagpur and claimed that the decree obtained
by respondent in USA was void and based on misrepresentation
of facts and she claimed for divorce maintenance and the
reliefs. She succeeded in that case and a fresh divorce
decree was passed by the Nagpur Court on 11.6.84 relying
upon Smt. Satya vs. Tej Singh [1975 (1) SCC 120]. That
would mean that the Indian Court held that the US divorce
decree dt. 25.10.1997 was not binding on the said
Bhagyawanti.
Narayan Prasad Rewany vs State Of Orissa And Anr. on 26 September, 1956
Point 1: From the facts already stated, it is clear that
the appellant has an order in her favour of the High Court
of Bombay dated 15.4.86 giving her the custody of the child
passed while dismissing the writ petition filed by the
respondent seeking a writ of baheas corpus. The appellant
then has also an order in her favour passed again under the
Guardian & Wards Act dated 23.11.1987, though in exparte
proceedings, giving her permanent custody of the child. The
appeals preferred by the respondent against he said order to
the Supreme Court have been dismissed. The order in the
proceedings under the Guardian & Wards Act, 1890 dated
23.11.1987, even though exparte is binding on the respondent
as it concerns the same subject matter and operates as res
judicata (Mulla, CPC, Vol.1, 15th Ed., P. 109) (See also
Sarkar on Evidence 13th Ed. P. 1128 that judgment by default
creates an estoppel - quoting sailendra Narayan vs. State of
Orissa AIR 1956 SC 346).