Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.58 seconds)
B. Vasanthi vs Bakthavatchalu And Others on 24 August, 1992 cites

Vaidehi vs I. Gopinath on 3 February, 1992

After referring the wishes of the minors in the said case and Sec. 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, this Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to ask for a writ of habeas corpus and the parties were directed to agitate before proper court. The ratio laid down in the above decision squarely applies to the facts of the instant case. As per Sec. 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the father/first respondent is the natural guardian of the minor children who are admittedly above seven years. It is not in dispute that the father filed a petition for dissolution of marriage between him and the petitioner herein and that it is pending before the competent civil court, namely, Sub-Court, Poonamallee. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner claimed interim maintenance that she is unable to maintain herself and she is depending upon her father and that the first respondent herein is in affluent circumstances. Under S. 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Court before which proceedings are pending has got every jurisdiction to pass interim orders regarding custody of the children. In the instant case, admittedly the children are in the custody of their father for more than a year and the children are admitted in school. The only allegation levelled against the first respondent is that he used to attend office during day time and the children will be in the custody of their grand parents. In the instant case, we have examined the children and their statements have been extracted above and they do not want to go with their mother (petitioner). They have categorically stated that they are studying and that they are looked after well by their father.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 Next