Child custody citations

Child custody citations

Equivalent citations: AIR 1999 SC 1741, JT 1999 (4) SC 3, 1999 (3) SCALE 584
Bench: S Majmudar, D Mohapatra
Pooja Bahadur vs Uday Bahadur on 11/5/1999
 Equivalent citations: 1982 AIR, 3 1982 SCR (1)1003
Bench: Sen, A.P.
PETITIONER:
JEEWANTI PANDEY
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
KISHAN CHANDRA PANDEY
DATE OF JUDGMENT20/10/1981


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
T.A. No. 366 of 2008
Date of Decision: September 23, 2009
Geena
…..Petitioner
Vs.
Harpreet Singh

 Equivalent citations: AIR 2005 P H 237
Bench: M Kumar
Smt. Sarabjit Wd/O Sh. Mukesh Kumar vs Sh. Piara Lal And Anr. on 1/4/2005
ORDER
M.M. Kumar, J.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07..07..2009
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. PALANIVELU
C.R.P. (P.D.) No.817 of 2009
and M.P.No.1 of 2009
R. Muruga Perumal ... Petitioner
Vs
J. Radhamani ... Respondent
Civil Revision

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2628 OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 17184 of 2007)
Smt. Anjali Kapoor ..........Appellant Versus
Rajiv Baijal ........Respondent JUDGMENT
H.L. Dattu,J.

FAO No.1572 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.1572 of 2006
Date of Decision: 25.2.2009
Shakuntala
.Appellant.
Vs.
Rajesh
.


1    "Supreme Court of India
(Equivalent citations: AIR 1999 SC 1741, JT 1999 (4) SC 3, 1999 (3) SCALE 584)"    11 May, 2009    Pooja Bahadur    Uday Bahadur    "We make it clear that the Guardian and Wards Court will decide the question of further interim or final relief strictly on its own merits, without in any way being affected by the interim arrangement which is directed to be continued, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties, by our present order.
(http://indiankanoon.org/doc/232704/)"

2    "Supreme Court of India
(Equivalent citations: 1982 AIR, 3 1982 SCR (1)1003)"    20 Oct, 1981    Jeewanti Pandey    Kishan Chandra Pandey    "It is plain in the context of cl. (ii) of s. 19 of the Act, that the word 'resides' must mean the actual place of residence and not a legal or constructive residence; it certainly does not connote the place of origin. The word 'resides' is a flexible one and has many shades of meaning, but it must take its colour and content from the context in which it appears and cannot be read in isolation. It follows that it was the actual residence of the appellant, at the commencement of the proceedings, that had to be considered for determining whether the District Judge,        Almora, had jurisdiction or not. That being so, the High Court was clearly in error in uphold in the finding of the learned District Judge that he had jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition for annulment of marriage filed by the respondent under s. 12 of the Act. In the result, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the District Judge, Almora, is directed to return to the respondent the petition filed by him for nullity of marriage under s. 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for presentation to the proper court, i.e. the Court of the District Judge, Delhi. There shall be Do order as to costs. S.R. Appeal allowed.
(http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/670599/)"
3    "Punjab-Haryana High Court
(Equivalent citations: AIR 2005 P H 237)"    01 Apr, 2005    Smt. Sarabjit Wd/O Sh. Mukesh    Sh. Piara Lal And Anr.    "The Guardian Judge, Hoshiarpur is directed to decide the petition filed by the petitioner-mother expeditiously. Keeping in view the principles enunciated by Section 6(1) of 1956 Act, the interim custody of the minor child Gautam who is admittedly below five years of age is granted to mother. Let the child be handed over to the petitioner-wife within a period of one week from today. The petitioner-mother shall also be entitled to costs which are quantified as Rs. 10,000/-
(http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/794966/)"
4    Madras High Court    07 Jul, 2009    R. Muruga Perumal    J. Radhamani    " Keeping in mind the principles and guidelines contained in the decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court aforementioned, this Court is of the opinion that the custody of the child with the mother would be more advantageous to the welfare of the child and there is no valid ground made out interfere with the well considered order passed by the Court below. The observations and findings of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge are more appropriate, which are pertinent to the point in issue and he has personally seen the child on two occasions in the court and reached a conclusion that the child is not in a position to farm a definite idea. He has also aptly provided visitation rights to the petitioner. If both parties intend to have any clarification in the order challenged before this court as to the visitation rights, with reference to time and place, where the child has to be visited by the petitioner, they may very well approach the Court below by filing separate application and get orders. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits which suffers dismissal.
(http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1542129/)"
5    "Supreme Court of India
(CIVIL APPEAL NO.2628 OF 2009)"    17 Apr, 2009    Smt. Anjali Kapoor    Rajiv Baijal    "Ordinarily, under the Guardian and Wards Act, the natural guardians of the child have the right to the custody of the child, but that right is not absolute and the Courts are expected to give paramount consideration to the welfare of the minor child. The child has remained with the appellant/grandmother for a long time and is growing up well in an atmosphere which is conducive to its growth. It may not be proper at this stage for diverting the environment to which the child is used to. Therefore, it is desirable to allow the appellant to retain the custody of the child.
(http://indiankanoon.org/doc/691247/)"

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AlMRDlOV7r6VdDdyMnNrV1B0QUMwbVFoT0R3NGhkNGc#gid=0

Thanks to Deepak sood and Jhakasbachha for sharing