Child Custody

2020 SCeJournal 1901




Supreme Court eJournal-2021 @ Rs 1000/-
Subscription starts today till 31.12.2021


(i) Constitution of India, Article 142  - Custody of child  - In matters such as the present, the welfare of the minor child is of paramount concern -  The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution is a facilitative constitutional instrument to advance substantive justice -  In exercise of these powers, we are of the view that the arrangement which has been arrived at during the pendency of the proceedings should be modified so as to best subserve the interests of the child - The technicality of whether or not the appellant has challenged the Family Court's order dated 1 March 2018 cannot obfuscate the core issue which is the welfare of the child - Allowing this case to be lost in a maze of technicalities involving a formal challenge to the order, will eventually lead to the child staying in Bengaluru with the maternal grandparents, while the mother is employed in Singapore - The child will lose a year of education in Singapore, which is an additional reason for the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 - We have informed that Singapore is Covid free and the child would be able to attend regular school and some on-line classes. Undoubtedly, the respondent, as the father, is entitled to have adequate rights of access and visitation - A balance has to be drawn so as to ensure that in a situation where the parents are in a conflict, the child has a sense of security -  The interests of the child are best subserved by ensuring that both the parents have a presence in his upbringing - Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890) - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956) - Hindu marriage Act, 1955. #2020 SCeJ 1901


@ Rs 2800/-
including subscription to
Supreme Court eJournal-2021


Custody of child – Application of mother to take the child out of the country where she is working - Ever since the appellant and the respondent started living apart child is in the care and custody of the appellant-mother - Appellant had relocated to Singapore as she was given an option by her employer to relocate to Singapore as a part of a restructuring exercise -  Whatever be the reason underlying her relocation to Singapore, it is evident from the material on record that the purpose of the appellant in doing so was not to place the child outside the jurisdiction of Indian courts -  The fact that the parents of the appellant have moved to Bengaluru to help their daughter, does not transfer the custody of the child, either as a matter of law or fact, from the appellant to the maternal grand-parents - Interests of the child require that the appellant be allowed to take the child with her to Singapore, where the appellant resides - At the same time, the ultimate directions that the Court issues must also address the apprehension of the respondent that the child should not be placed outside the control and jurisdiction of the Family Court, Bengaluru - Adequate arrangements for access and visitation to the respondent ensured – Conditions laid down. Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of 1890) - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956). #2020 SCeJ 1901







Register SCeJ  Free Updates*

Supreme Court e@journal

Subscribe or take a 4 week FREE trial 

Note: Please fill out the fields marked with an asterisk.