Confiscation Of Vehicle Under Section 49 Assam Forest Regulation Is Only Temporary; Final Confiscation Requires Conviction Under Section 51: Gauhati High Court Amendment Of Written Statement Cannot Be Allowed After Trial Commences If Facts Were Within Party's Knowledge: Delhi High Court Section 149 IPC Cannot Be Invoked If Number Of Convicted Persons Falls Below Five After Acquittal Of Co-Accused: Allahabad High Court Requirement Of 'Clear Seven Days' Notice For No-Confidence Motion Under West Bengal Panchayat Act Is Procedural, Not Mandatory: Calcutta High Court Cooperative Society’s General Body Cannot Ratify Appointment Made In Violation Of Statutory Rules: Punjab & Haryana High Court Registered Will Executed In Hospital Carries Presumption Of Genuineness; Illness Doesn't Equal Unsound Mind: Delhi High Court Exacting Work From Teachers Without Paying Salary Amounts To 'Begar', Violates Article 23: Bombay High Court General & Omnibus Charge Sheet Lacking Individual Roles Of Accused In Matrimonial Case Is Abuse Of Process: Calcutta High Court Admission Of Claim By IRP Not An 'Acknowledgment Of Liability' Under Section 18 Limitation Act To Extend Limitation: Supreme Court Special Appeal Against Order Refusing To Initiate Contempt Proceedings Not Maintainable If Merits Of Original Case Not Decided: Allahabad High Court Prior Sanction Not Required For Magistrate To Direct FIR Registration Under Section 156(3) CrPC; It Is A Pre-Cognizance Stage: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Create Or Expand Criminal Offences In Absence Of Legislative Action: Supreme Court Rejects Plea For Specific Hate Speech Law State Cannot Reopen Regularisation Issues That Attained Finality; ISRO Must Grant Permanent Status To Daily-Wagers: Supreme Court Plaintiffs Seeking Declaration Of Title Must Succeed On Strength Of Own Title, Not Weakness Of Defendant’s Case: Andhra Pradesh High Court Interest Of Justice Demands Child Of Tender Age Remains In Mother's Custody: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judgment Debtors Cannot Approbate And Reprobate; Must Adhere To Agreed Valuation In Compromise Decree: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Act As Appellate Court Under Article 227 Supervisory Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores NICE Project Land Valuation Material Omissions In Section 161 Statements Cannot Be Cured By Improvements During Trial: Supreme Court Section 498A IPC | Courts Must Guard Against Roping In All Family Members Without Specific Evidence Of Individual Roles: Supreme Court Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Pawan Khera In Forgery Case, Says Allegations Prima Facie Appear Politically Motivated

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