No Offence of Money Laundering When Scheduled Offence Not Committed: Delhi High Court Upholds Discharge in Money Laundering Case Finality of Resolved Land Compensation Claims In Land Acquisition Cannot Be Undone Based on Policy Changes: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Conspiracy Charges in Burail Jail Break Case, Citing Key Witnesses Turning Hostile Fictional Cause of Action Cannot Circumvent Limitation Law; Plaint Rejected Under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC: Supreme Court Judicial Scrutiny Of Interest Rates Is Barred By Law; It Is The Reserve Bank's Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court IBC | High Court Interference In CIRP Proceedings Is Unwarranted Unless There Are Exceptional Circumstances: Supreme Court Recommendations of the Single Member Committee must align with BCCI Constitution to avoid governance conflicts in cricket administration: Supreme Court Excessive Interference Undermines Efficiency And Independence Of Arbitral Proceedings: Supreme Court Awareness of Award's Filing Triggers Limitation, Not Formal Notice: Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation Period for Arbitration Awards Contributions To Construction Do Not Confer Exclusive Title Unless Backed By Proof Of Consent Or Separate Agreement: Calcutta High Court Affirms Equal Ownership In Joint Property Seniority Must Prevail in Teacher Transfers: Kerala High Court Overrules Administrative Tribunal's Orders" High Court Cannot Condon Delay Beyond 90 Days in UAPA Bail Appeals: Punjab & Haryana High Court Offences Under Section 138 of the NI Act Are Compensatory in Nature and Can Be Resolved at Any Stage: Madras High Court Fairness and Transparency in Property Distribution: Delhi High Court Resolves Family Dispute Pre-EMI Deductions Without Adherence to RBI Guidelines Not Enforceable Under Writ Jurisdiction: Andhra Pradesh High Court Unilateral Claims Cannot Substitute Proof: Calcutta High Court Rules in Insurance Dispute Bank Guarantees Are Autonomous Contracts, Cannot Be Obstructed by External Claims: Kerala High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC | Additional Evidence Cannot Be Used to Fill Gaps in a Party’s Case: P&H High Court Rajasthan High Court Quashes FIR Against Actress Shilpa Raj Kundra: Finds No Intent or Mens Rea to Violate SC/ST Act"

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,

 

Similar News