Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Section 6 of the Act does not bar any class of persons from approaching the Court; rather, it operates in the context of recognising certain categories of guardians. The Act nowhere provides that persons professing Muslim law are precluded from seeking relief under it.”
“Section 9, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 in no uncertain terms envisages that the petition should be filed where the minor ordinarily resides.”
This legal roundup travels across various Courts to discuss top Family Law cases from 2025, such as admissibility of Recorded Spousal Conversations Admissible as Evidence, False Cases, Ratan Tata’s Will, Yuzvendra Chahal’s Divorce, Saif Ali Khan’s Ancestral Property, and much more.
Covering all the important family law cases across various High Courts and the Supreme Court as well as the legislative updates, this roundup provides a quick summary of cases, latest legal updates in family law and links to other roundups.
“The principle that the father is the natural guardian of the minor child-boy or unmarried girl, and after him, the mother is primarily derived from section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, though seminal at its time. Now it smacks patriarchal bias, therefore, become obsolete in the progressive realities of 21st- century in India”
Perusing relevant provisions of Guardianship Act, the Court pointed out that a father is a natural guardian of a minor in the absence of any order otherwise passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction.
Supreme Court said that the fact that when custody of the child was handed over to the aunt , she was un-married, and is now married having two children will not be a deterrent for this Court to come to the conclusion that best interest of the child still remains with the aunt as the child is living with her ever since she was 3-4 months old.
The writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative writ and an extraordinary remedy. It is a writ of right and not a writ of course and may be granted only on reasonable grounds or probable cause being shown.
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.”