“Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights is directed to furnish year-wise details of operations conducted by it from 2016 to date.”
In the matters of Guardianship and Custody, the dilemma is that the logic may say that the child must be in the custody of his father, but the circumstances and the intelligent preference of the child point out that it is not in the interest and welfare of the child to uproot him from the family where he has been happily entrenched since the age of 1½ years.
This report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1951 on requirements of adoption under Hindu Law.
Eruption of wisdom tooth may at the most suggest that the age of the person is 17 years or above, but non-eruption or absence of wisdom tooth does not conclusively prove that the person is below 18 years of age.
The High Court was hearing a petition filed by a couple aged 57 and 45 years, who had lost their son to road accident, and wanted to re-experience the bliss of parenthood via surrogacy but were barred by certain provisions of Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.
The Delhi High Court dismissed Dabur's plea of passing an interim direction to stay the order of Advertising Standards Council of India and held that Dabur's product ‘Dabur Vita' was violating advertisement code.
Bombay High Court: In a case filed by the mother of a 9-year-old minor boy, seeking quashing of the FIR
Orissa High Court: In a case where a father (‘petitioner') is seeking compensation on the death of his seven-year-old daughter,
Bombay High Court: While deciding a custody case, the single judge bench of Bharati Dangre, J. observed that the Family Court failed
Karnataka High Court: M Nagaprasanna, J. allowed the petition filed seeking further cross examination of the child victim as the victim has
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Mukta Gupta and Mini Pushkarna, JJ. upheld the impugned conviction order considering the accused has
National Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): The Coram of Justice R.K. Agrawal (President) and Dr S.M. Kantikar (Member), on finding that a child
Kerala High Court: Addressing a matter wherein maternity benefits were not being allowed to female officers, Raja Vijayaraghavan V, JJ., expressed that
Karnataka High Court: Hemant Chandangoudar, J., allowed the petition and quashed the impugned proceedings initiated against alleged offence under Section 80 of
Supreme Court: In a case where the husband had disputed paternity of child on suspicion, though the Division Bench comprising of Indira
Chhattisgarh High Court: In a child custody battle, the Division Bench of Goutam Bhaduri and Rajani Dubey, JJ., reiterated the position of
Kerala High Court: While addressing a matter for an offence alleged under Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, Juvenile Justice Act and
Supreme Court: Upholding the concurrent findings of High Court as well as Sessions Court and Juvenile Justice Board, the Division Bench comprising
“The reasoning in the High Court’s judgment quite insensitively trivializes – indeed legitimizes – an entire range of unacceptable behaviour which undermines a child’s dignity and autonomy, through unwanted intrusions.”