“The Family Court is not to act as an adjudicatory forum alone but is also to act as a facilitator to secure settlement of disputes. The Family Court ought to adopt a different approach from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings.”
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.
The Court said that the right of a mother to have custody of her children is not absolute, but subject to the welfare of her children.
The Standing Orders ought to be respected by the investigating agencies and non-compliance of those Standing Orders may naturally invoke a reasonable doubt relating to the process of sampling which is the most critical procedure to be carried out to ascertain the nature of the substance and its quantity.
Delhi High Court noted that the Duty Magistrate has the power to decide the application under Section 437 CrPC
The primary object of a Habeas Corpus petition, as applied to minor children, is to determine in whose custody the best interests of the child will probably be advanced.
Allahabad High Court said that the detenue is living with her parents, thus, it cannot be said that she is in illegal detention.
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.
Madras High Court held that the wife is entitled to institute and maintain matrimonial proceedings, DVC proceedings and any other proceedings under the relevant Statutes in Indian Courts having jurisdiction for appropriate reliefs.
In a case of Cross FIRs relating to murder and attempt to murder, the Supreme Court has granted bail to the main accused in the murder case
The mere usage of the word “parent”, “relative” or “any person” in Section 14 of National Trust for the Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation, and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 does not convince this Court to conclude that a non-citizen could also claim a right to be appointed as a guardian of a person with a disability. Neither of those three expressions can be possibly understood as constituting a legislative intent to recognise foreign nationals as being entitled to be appointed as guardians.
Technology has advanced so much that regular interactions between two individuals living in different countries or even continents can easily be maintained through video calls and video conferencing. In fact, in the last three years, when the world was grappling with the Covid pandemic, interactions through video calls have become the new norm. Even when Courts today are functioning fully physically, lawyers are being permitted to join through video conferencing only because of the advancements in technology.
Supreme Court has ordered that the Rajasthan High Court's impugned order being interlocutory in nature, shall not be treated as precedent for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner in other cases, and the question of law was kept open to be decided in an appropriate case.
Chhattisgarh High Court | In an appeal related to the custody of a girl child, a Division Bench comprising of
Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to Wildlife conservationist and snake expert Vava Suresh accused under the Wildlife Protection Act, for displaying a highly poisonous cobra while delivering his speech at a Government Medical College
Delhi High Court denied bail to a married person as he wanted to take advantage of the complainant by getting the complainant’s Date of Birth on the Aadhar Card changed so that when the applicant established physical relationship with the complainant, she would not have been a minor.
Telangana High Court: While deciding a case, wherein, a writ of habeas corpus was filed seeking to direct the respondents
Madras High Court: In an application seeking the appointment of the applicant as a fit and proper person to be
Madras High Court: The five-judge bench of P.N. Prakash, N. Anand Venkatesh, R. Mahadevan, M. Sundar, A.A. Nakkiran, JJ. in a 3:2
Madras High Court: In a case relating to the issue of concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court over matters of child custody