Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.43 seconds)Rajiv Bhatia vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 9 September, 1999
15. The case of Rajiv Bhatia 1999 Cri LJ 4292 (SC) (supra) relied on by Shri Bajwa, in our opinion, does not help respondent No. 3. In that case, the dispute was with regard to the custody of a young child between the adoptive parents and the natural mother. The Court held that the mother was entitled to the custody of the child. The only thing pointed out by Shri Bajwa in the judgment is that the views of the child should be given due weight. This Court is not deciding the rights of the parties while giving the custody of the child to the petitioner. What is being held by this Court is that the custody of Pawan to any person, other than the petitioner-mother amounts to illegal custody. As such, the wishes of the minor cannot be the guiding factor. The position might be different if both the parties were entitled to the legal custody of the child.
Dr. (Mrs.) Veena Kapoor vs Shri Varinder Kumar Kapoor on 6 April, 1981
17. The case of Dr. Mrs. Veena Kapoor 1982 Cri LJ 580 (SC) (supra) was between mother and the father of the child. The child (1 1/2 years), was in the custody of father after estrangement. Keeping in view that both the parents were natural guardian and minor's welfare was the paramount consideration, their Lordships directed an enquiry to be held by the District Judge on the question as to whether the custody of the child should be given to the mother. As already stated, in the instant case, the dispute is not between the two natural guardians and it is also not averred that the mother is leading immoral life or that she is not physically or mentally fit to look after the well being of Pawan, there is no cause to get the matter enquired into by the District Judge.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Smt. Usha Devi And Anr. vs Kailash Narain Dixit And Ors. on 21 January, 1977
In the case of Smt. Usha Devi AIR 1978 Madh Pra 24 (supra), a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has clearly observed that since the other relations having no legal right to the custody of a minor, their refusal to return the boy to the petitioners (parents) results in an illegal detention of the boy. We fully concur with the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in that case. Obviously, the respondent No. 3 does not have legal right to the custody of Pawan. His detention by respondent No. 3, therefore, is illegal.
Section 6 in The Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890 [Entire Act]
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
1