Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Supreme Court said that the repeated visitation rights in the Court premises would also not be in the interest of the child as the environment during which the visitation rights are exercised would also matter.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
The biological parents first decided to give their child in adoption due to the financial crisis during COVID-19 pandemic but decided to take their son back after discussion with their respective families.
Kerala High Court was disturbed by the language used by Family Court and expressed that highly distasteful language depicts the mind set of an officer of high rank in the district judiciary.
The Karnataka High Court, while deliberating over a father’s prayer seeking repatriation of his minor son to Germany, dismissed the petition on ground of the child’s best interests and allowed the son to remain with his mother in India.
The Karnataka High Court held that order granting visitation rights to the father is outside the jurisdictional scope of Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights.
Top Stories Your cheat sheet to Supreme Court’s 545 pages long Money Laundering verdict The 3-judge bench of AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari
Top Stories of the Month Clean Chit to PM Modi in 2002 Gujarat riots case “SIT Officials have come out with flying
Supreme Court of the United States: While deciding the instant matter related to the international custody of a child which further involved
District Court Appeal (Family Division): Debbie Ong, J., while granting joint custody of a child to mother and father held that the
Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of A.Muhamed Mustaque and Sophy Thomas held that the District Court cannot entertain petition to appoint
Madras High Court: G.R. Swaminathan, J., while retention of custody of an Elephant named ‘Lalitha’ to her caretaker with whom she had stayed
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of A.S. Chandurkar and N.B. Suryawanshi, JJ., determined the factors in regard to grant of custody of
Supreme Court: The bench of UU Lalit, Indu Malhotra and Hemant Gupta, JJ, explaining the concept of a mirror order, has said,
Supreme Court: The bench of UU Lalit, Indu Malhotra and Hemant Gupta, JJ has, in a 2:1 verdict, has transferred the custody
Supreme Court: In a case dealing with the custody of a 7-year-old, the 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and
Lord Campbell, CJ., while deciding the custody of child allowed the Writ of Habeas Corpus, marking significant observations on ‘guardian of nurture’
Supreme Court: Showing dismay over a case where two minors were forced to stay in a Boarding School due to an ongoing
Supreme Court: In the issue relating to custody of a child where the question was as to whether the Counsellor’s report furnished
Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Sahidullah Munshi, J. allowed an application under Section 24 CPC for transfer of