Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

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