Supreme Court of India Judgements

46755 Judgements hosted as on 29/03/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Child Custody

Child Custody

Custody and visitation — Appellant and Respondent married in 2007 and separated in 2016, have been in a custody dispute over their daughter, who has lived with mother since the separation — The father sought joint custody or expanded visitation, while the mother raised safety concerns due to alleged abusive behavior — The Family Court granted sole custody to the mother with limited visitation for the father — The High Court expanded visitation rights, including more frequent visits, shared vacations, and video calls, while retaining sole custody with the mother — The Supreme Court upheld most arrangements but reduced vacation visits to one day initially and mandated a female court commissioner’s presence during physical visits in public places — The decision aims to balance the child’s safety, stability, and the father’s involvement, pending a full hearing.

Jan 26, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 99 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RUHI AGRAWAL AND ANOTHER Vs. NIMISH S. AGRAWAL ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Special Leave…

Child Custody Matrimonial

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.

Dec 28, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 1036 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUGIRTHA Vs. GOWTHAM ( Before : Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No….of 2024 (Arising Out of…

Child Custody

Visitation Rights — Appellant-mother is appealing against an order allowing the repatriation of her minor daughter to the United States of America, where her father resides — The Supreme Court granted the father’s request for visitation rights during his visit to India from 14.06.2024 to 30.06.2024 — The visitation rights will take place at Kohinoor Continental Hotel, Mumbai, on weekends falling on 15.06.2024 and 16.06.2024; 22.06.2024 and 23.06.2024; and 29.06.2024 and 30.06.2024 — During the visitation period, the father will surrender his passport with the Registrar of the Bombay High Court and ensure that he does not harm or take the child out of Mumbai — Additionally, he will arrange accommodation for the mother at the same hotel for the entire visitation period.

Jul 4, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA VACATION BENCH SUPRIYA NAIR — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ. )…

Child Custody

Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 – Sections 7, 9 and 25 – Custody Dispute – The case revolves around a custody dispute over two minor children following the deterioration of the marriage between the petitioner and respondent – The High Court granted shared custody, which was challenged by the appellant – The primary issue is the guardianship and welfare of the children, considering their preferences and the capabilities of each parent – The appellant argued that the children have been residing with him for nine years and expressed a desire to continue doing so – The respondent argued that the appellant retained custody against various court orders and alleged ‘parental alienation syndrome’ – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order, and reinstated the Family Court’s decision granting custody to the appellant, subject to the respondent’s visitation rights – The court found no evidence of ‘parental alienation syndrome’ and recognized the support system provided by the Indian Armed Forces for the children’s welfare – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant should retain custody of the children, with the respondent granted visitation rights as per the Family Court’s order.

May 12, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 397 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COL. RAMNEESH PAL SINGH — Appellant Vs. SUGANDHI AGGARWAL — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.…

Child Custody

Custody of the minor child – The case involves a custody dispute over a minor child ‘G’ after his mother went missing and was later found deceased – The child’s father and maternal grandmother are contesting custody – Whether the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable in child custody matters? – The High Court erred in entertaining the habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India – The writ of habeas corpus is maintainable in child custody matters only if the detention of the child is illegal and without any authority of law – In child custody matters, the ordinary remedy lies under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act or the Guardians and Wards Act – The High Court should have directed the parties to approach the civil court for a detailed enquiry – The welfare of the child is paramount, and the child’s custody should be decided in accordance with law.

May 11, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 370 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NIRMALA — Appellant Vs. KULWANT SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Child Custody

“Upbringing vs. Biology: Supreme Court Prioritizes Stability Over Paternal Claim in Custody Battle” The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the aunt and set aside the order of the High Court, which had directed the custody of the child to be handed over to the father – The Supreme Court relied on the principles of child welfare, stability, and preference, and found that the child was happy, intelligent, and categorical in her wish to live with the aunt

Mar 8, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHAZIA AMAN KHAN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal,…

You missed

Cr P C

In a case involving cross-FIRs (alleging offences u/s 294(b), 323, 506(1) IPC) arising from a dispute between two practicing advocates pending since 2017, the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, quashed the FIR against the appellants and also quashed the connected proceedings

Mar 29, 2025 sclaw
I P C

Conviction under Section 302 requires proof of premeditation or intention to kill; absence of such elements may lead to reduced charges, such as under Section 304 IPC, with sentencing considerations potentially based on time already served

Mar 25, 2025 sclaw
I P C

Mere presence at a crime scene, without evidence of an overt act or specific role, is insufficient to convict an individual as a member of an unlawful assembly, especially in cases involving large crowds and public disturbances

Mar 25, 2025 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Extension of period of limitation in certain circumstances — Courts may liberally condone delays in appeals, especially by the State

Mar 25, 2025 sclaw