SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana 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