Month: April 2017

Leave to defend–Refusal of–Where leave to defend the leave refused in a summary suit, the consequences of passing a decree cannot be avoided. Leave to defend–Refusal of–Where an appeal lies under Section 96 of the Code, ordinarily an application under Article 227 of the Constitution would not be maintainable.

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 476 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju  Civil Appeal No. 230 of 2007…

Cruelty–Inference–Where there is a proof of a deliberate course of conduct on the part of one, intended to hurt and humiliate the other spouse, and such a conduct is persisted, cruelty can easily be inferred–Neither actual nor presumed intention to hurt the other spouse is a necessary element in cruelty.

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 456 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur Civil Appeal No. 5779 of 2006…

Service Matters

Service Law–Parallel proceedings–Departmental Enquiry and Criminal Proceedings–There would be no bar to proceed simultaneously with departmental enquiry and trial of a criminal case unless the charge in the criminal trial is of grave nature involving complicated question of fact and law.

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 433 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar…

You missed

For best interest and welfare of the child are the paramount considerations when determining visitation rights A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The paramount consideration when determining visitation rights is the best interest and welfare of the child — This principle takes precedence over the rights of the parents — The court emphasizes that a child’s health and well-being must not be compromised in the process of adjudicating parental rights. B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Both parents have a right to the care, company, and affection of their child — However, this right is not absolute and must be balanced with the need to protect the child’s welfare — In this case, the court acknowledges the father’s right to visit his daughter but ensures that these visits do not negatively impact the child. C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Matrimonial disputes and serious allegations between parents should not impede a child’s right to the care and company of both parents — The court separates the child’s welfare from the conflict between the parents. D. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Visitation arrangements must not cause undue hardship to the child — The court modified the High Court’s order, which required the child to travel 300 kilometers every Sunday, as it was deemed detrimental to the child’s health and well-being. E. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The location for visitation must be convenient and in the best interest of the child — The court changed the visitation location from Karur to Madurai, which is closer to the child’s residence, in order to prioritize the child’s comfort and convenience. F. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Supervised visitation may be necessary, especially for young children — The court directed that the father’s visits should occur in a public place, with the mother present (though at a distance), due to the child’s young age and unfamiliarity with the father.