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 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.
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.
Madras High Court stated that the expression “person suffering from multiple disability” under 1999 Act will be equivalent in meaning to “person with benchmark disability” under Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Thus, allowed the petitioner to be appointed as a guardian to her sister, suffering from schizophrenia.
“If the prayers of the petitioners in the present petition are not considered favorably, it would create a situation where the respondent already having given up any claims towards the minor child, she would be deprived of the right to be taken care of and maintained by the petitioners, who are more than willing to take care of her needs, being the biological parents of the minor child.”
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
Supreme Court: The bench of AM Khanwilkar and JB Pardiwala*, JJ, in a matter relating to custody of two minor children, has
“One should not doubt the capacity and/or ability of the paternal grandparents to take care of their grandson.”
Allahabad High Court: Dr Y.K. Srivastava, J., expressed that, in a matter of custody of a minor child, the paramount consideration is
“Human affairs can never be disposed of by a rubber stamp approach or the application, virtually of mathematical formulae.”
Allahabad High Court: J.J., Munir, J., addressed a matter wherein the father of the minor children has been facing trial for criminal charges
Kerala High Court: A Division Bench of K. Harilal and T.V Anil Kumar, JJ. dismissed an appeal made by the maternal grandparents
Punjab & Haryana High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Amol Rattan Singh, J., dismissed a petition filed against the order of
Kerala High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Anthony Dominic, CJ and Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. decided a public interest litigation, wherein
Delhi High Court: While deciding the instant review petition wherein the issue was raised that whether the either parties during the trial
Madras High Court: While disposing of an appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the Single Bench of