Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Child’s Welfare Paramount, Not Biological Claims – Supreme Court in Custody Battle

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Shazia Aman Khan And Another v. The State Of Orissa And Others, emphasized that in child custody disputes, the welfare of the child is of paramount importance over the claims of biological parents. The Bench comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal underscored this principle while adjudicating a complex custody battle involving a 14-year-old girl.

The apex court’s judgement centered around the parens patriae jurisdiction, focusing on the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration in custody disputes. The case dealt with the custody of a minor child, born a twin, and raised since infancy by her maternal aunt and her family, in contrast to the claims of the biological father.

The child, Sumaiya Khanam, later renamed Dania Aman Khan, had been living with the appellants since she was a few months old due to her biological parents’ financial difficulties. The father’s efforts to regain custody included filing an FIR, which was closed, and a private complaint that is still pending. The mother initially filed a habeas corpus petition, which was later withdrawn.

The Supreme Court thoroughly evaluated the circumstances, distinguishing between custody and guardianship, particularly under Mohammedan law. The Court noted the appellants’ willingness to ensure the child’s welfare and stability and recognized the child’s preference to remain with them. The Court engaged in a meaningful interaction with the child, who expressed a desire to continue living with the appellants.

Concluding that the child’s welfare and her preference are paramount, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order. The custody of the child will remain with the appellants, as uprooting her at this stage of life was deemed not in her best interest.

 Date of Decision: March 4, 2024

Shazia Aman Khan And Another v. The State Of Orissa And Others,

 

Latest Legal News