NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

Prioritizing The Child’s Well-Being Over Other Considerations In Custody Battles: Supreme Court Upholds Father’s Custody In Child Custody Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the custody of a child with the father, emphasizing the paramount importance of the child’s welfare in custody disputes. The decision in the case of Selvaraj vs. Revathi was delivered by Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal.

The apex court, in its judgment, highlighted, “In any matter of custody of a child, his welfare is paramount consideration.” This observation underscores the court’s approach in prioritizing the child’s well-being over other considerations in custody battles.

The custody dispute emerged after a matrimonial discord between Selvaraj and Revathi, leading to divorce proceedings. The child, born out of their wedlock, had been living with the father since birth. Despite a previous order directing the father to hand over custody to the mother, compliance was not met.

The court interacted directly with the child, who expressed a strong preference to stay with the father. The court noted, “From the very beginning, he is living with the father-appellant... It would not be in the interest for upbringing of the child that his custody is given to the respondent-mother at this stage.”

Senior Advocate Ms. V. Mohana was appointed to counsel and interact with the child and parents. Her efforts led to the child agreeing to monthly meetings and phone calls with the mother, fostering a gradual improvement in their relationship.

Maintaining the status quo, the Supreme Court ruled that the child’s custody would remain with the father, Selvaraj, while granting the mother, Revathi, rights to call and have monthly visits. The court’s decision is reflective of its consideration of the child’s preferences and psychological well-being.

Date of Decision: 6th December 2023

SELVARAJ VS REVATHI

Latest Legal News