Law Does Not Countenance Resurrection Of Stale Claims Through Inventive Drafting: Karnataka High Court Rejects 20-Year-Old Partition Dispute CPC Provisions Cannot Be Used to Transfer Consumer Complaints Across States: NCDRC Invokes Section 62 to End Forum-Shifting Ordeal in Nirmal Spinning Mills Case FSSA Provisions Prevail Over PFA Act In Cases Of Overlapping Jurisdiction, Prosecution Under Old Act Impermissible: J&K High Court Motive Pales Into Significance When Direct Ocular Evidence Establishes Crime; Enmity Is A Double-Edged Sword: Allahabad High Court Plaintiff Cannot Succeed Merely On Weakness Of Defence; Initial Burden To Prove Claim Rests On Claimant: Madras High Court Witness Threats Noted By Higher Courts Disentitle Convict To Suspension Of Sentence: Gujarat High Court Family Court Orders Must Be Enforced Immediately, Pendency Of Applications No Excuse For Disobedience: Delhi High Court 'Fraud And Justice Never Dwell Together': Karnataka High Court Reverses Order To Grant Land Based On Fabricated Records Development Authority Competent To Sanction Land Use Conversion From Residential To Nursing Home If Permitted Under Master Plan & Zoning Regulations: Allahabad High Court Notification Changing Import Policy From 'Free' To 'Restricted' Operative Only From Exact Time Of Publication In E-Gazette: Delhi High Court On Name Of Protection of the Complainer Excluding Relevant Defence Evidence in Sexual Offences Trials May Breach Fair Trial Rights: UK Supreme Court Boundaries In Sale Deed Prevail Over Discrepancy In Property Description; Adverse Possession Begins From Date Of Hostile Notice: Punjab & Haryana HC Supreme Court of UK Upholds HMRC Decision: Professional Fees Incurred by Investment Holding Company Are Capital Expenditure Criminal Law Cannot Be Used To Silence Citizens Questioning Legality Of Police Action: Madras High Court Quashes Obstruction Case Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Centre To Treat Ashok Khemka As Empaneled For Future Assignments, Says Denying Relaxation Granted To Peers Is Discriminatory Section 34 Court Cannot Substitute Arbitrator’s Plausible View With Its Own; Not Bound By Technical Rules Of Evidence Act: Madras High Court Article 227 Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Reopen Decrees Finalized Four Decades Ago: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Challenge To 1985 Order Daughter Has No Right To Inherit Agricultural Land If Succession Opened Before 2005 HSA Amendment: Delhi High Court Rejects Plaint Indian Trust Act Inapplicable To Public Religious Endowments; Sale Of Charity Property Without HR&CE Commissioner's Permission Void: Madras High Court Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Collateral Warranties Under Construction Contracts FIR Quashed Against Newsclick: PMLA Proceedings Cannot Stand Alone Without A Predicate Offence, Rules Delhi High Court Assessee Claiming TDS Exemption On "Reimbursement" To Non-Residents Must Obtain Mandatory Tax Determination Under Section 195(2): Madras High Court

Court Refused To Interfere Mother With Child's 9 Days' Custody For Foreign Travel: Delhi HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


D.D:22 JUNE 2022

In matters involving the custody of children, the Delhi High Court has ruled that the best interests of the children must be given the highest priority.

A vacation bench comprised of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma considered a petition challenging an order issued by the Family Court on June 8, 2022, allowing the mother to take the child to Malaysia for nine days.

The Family Court added that the mother must bring the child back to Delhi on July 3 in order for her to return to school following the summer break. In addition, the court ordered the mother and father to strictly adhere to the custody and visitation schedule outlined in its prior judicial orders.

The father had petitioned the High Court on the grounds that the Family Court had not considered all of the facts and circumstances and had issued the order without taking into account the mother's flight risk.

The father also asserted that, in the past, children were not always returned, a fact acknowledged by the High Court in various cases.

Examining the facts of the case, the court stated: "This court is firmly of the opinion that in matters involving the custody of children, the court must give paramount weight to the welfare of the children."

The Court noted that the Family Court, after considering all of the parties' arguments, had issued a detailed order permitting the mother to take the child to Malaysia for nine days. It was also noted that the mother had previously been permitted to take the child to Dubai.

"I believe that any intervention by this court at this stage and with such short notice would only cause psychological trauma to the child. Therefore, this court does not feel the need to interfere with the orders of the learned Family Court Judge "court stated.

While upholding the challenged order, the Court noted that it did not find any perversity, malice, or lack of mental application in the Family Court's decision.

On July 15, the Court notified the mother of the respondent and referred the matter to a roster bench.

PANKAJ JAIN

 

Versus

 

PARUL JAIN

Latest Legal News