Yashita Sahu vs The State Of Rajasthan on 20 January, 2020
The relevant extract of the judgment in the
case of Yashita Sahu vs. State of Rajasthan and others (supra) is
reproduced hereunder:-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)Section 6 in The Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw vs Arvand M. Dinshaw And Anr on 11 November, 1986
The principle of comity of courts has been followed by the
courts in India to honour and to show due respect to the judgments
obtained by the courts abroad. It is equally true that the judgment of a
foreign court would not be the only factor while considering the issue of
custody of a child to a parent. It would only be one of the factors for
consideration and would be subservient to the paramount consideration of
the interest and welfare of the child. Reference may be made to the
judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Yashita Sahu vs. State of
Rajasthan and others (supra) and Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw vs. Arvand M.
Dinshaw and another (supra).
Sumedha Nagpal vs State Of Delhi And Ors. on 3 March, 2000
The judgment in Sumedha Nagpal vs. State of Delhi (supra),
pertained to the custody of a 2 year child. The mother had sought custody
while the father had pleaded that the mother had left the matrimonial
house and abandoned the child to live with her parents. The child in that
case was brought up in the house of the father or the matrimonial home in
India. There were allegations and counter allegations involving disputed
questions of fact and it was under such circumstances that the Supreme
12 of 14
::: Downloaded on - 06-06-2021 00:38:20 :::
CRWP No.8319 of 2020 -13-
Court held that such disputed questions of fact would be best decided by
the family court. In the instant case the child was born in Australia and is
an Australian citizen. He was also brought up in Australia and only at the
age of about 4 years, he was brought to India by both the parents.
Ranbir Singh vs Satinder Kaur Mann And Ors. on 30 May, 2006
In the case of Ranbir Singh vs. Satinder Kaur Mann
(supra), the parents were in Malaysia and the father knew that the mother
had left Malaysia for India but he had intentionally mentioned her
Malaysian address in the divorce proceedings initiated by him in
Malaysia. The mother who was not aware of the proceedings did not
appear and the father obtained an ex parte decree for the custody of the
child. In the instant case, although the Australian address of the
respondent No.4 had been mentioned but a perusal of the record indicates
that respondent No.4 had not only engaged a counsel to defend himself
but he had also himself put in appearance. The order of the Australian
Court does indicate his presence. The petitioner has also placed on record
a copy of the correspondence between respondent No.4 and his lawyer at
Annexure P-18. The respondent No.4 was, thus, aware of the proceedings.
He had participated therein and only at a later stage, he chose not to
participate. Thus, it cannot be said that the order was passed by the
Australian court behind the back of respondent No.4 or was not in
conformity with the principles of natural justice.
Ruchi Majoo vs Sanjeev Majoo on 13 May, 2011
In the case of Ruchi Majoo vs. Sanjeev Majoo (supra), the
mother had brought the child to Delhi, while the father who was in
America had preferred a petition there and the American court had ruled
in favour of the father. The child had been living with her mother for 3
years and the custody of the child was directed to be handed over to the
mother and one of the factors which weighed with court was that the
father had contracted second marriage. The interest of the child was held
to be paramount and it was also observed that nothing prevents the High
Court from embarking a detailed enquiry if the cause of action is within
its jurisdiction.
Section 25 in The Guardians And Wards Act, 1890 [Entire Act]
Nithya Anand Raghavan vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 3 July, 2017
"It is too late in the day to urge that a writ of habeas
corpus is not maintainable if the child is in the custody of
another parent. The law in this regard has developed a lot
over a period of time but now it is a settled position that the
court can invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction for the
best interest of the child. This has been done in Elizabeth
Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw and Ors., (1987) 1 SCC 42,
Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.,
(2017) 8 SCC 454 and Lahari Sakhamuri v. SobhanKodali,
(2019) 7 SCC 311 among others. In all these cases the writ
petitions were entertained. Therefore, we reject the
contention of the appellant - wife that the writ petition before
the High Court of Rajasthan was not maintainable."
Amandeep Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 6 November, 2019
I also draw support from the judgment of this Court in the
case of Mandeep Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others (supra) wherein the
7 of 14
::: Downloaded on - 06-06-2021 00:38:20 :::
CRWP No.8319 of 2020 -8-
custody of 3½ year old daughter was granted to the mother; Neha vs. State
of Haryana and others (supra) wherein custody of four year old girl child
was also handed over to the mother.
Rajat Agarwal vs Sonal Agarwal on 25 February, 2021
A Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Rajat Agarwal vs. Sonal Agarwal, FAO No.4545 of 2017, decided
on 25.02.2021, had upheld the order of the Family Court granting custody
of 13 year old child to the mother. The relevant extract of the judgment is
reproduced hereunder:-