MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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