Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court

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