Lack Of Boundaries In Sale Deed Not Fatal To Title If Plot Number & Parent Title Are Sufficiently Identifiable: Calcutta High Court Terror Perception Of Underworld Justifies Delay In Invoking MCOCA; Purely Civil Disputes Can Metamorphose Into Criminal Offence: Bombay High Court Identical Wills Executed By Spouses On Same Day Not Necessarily 'Mutual Wills' Restricting Power Of Alienation: Delhi High Court Written Notice Not Mandatory For Revoking Permission Under Section 41 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act: Gujarat High Court Wife Cannot Maintain Complaint Against Husband Under Senior Citizens Act; Not Intended For Spousal Disputes: Karnataka High Court Mere Presence At Scene Or Facilitation Without Intent To Aid Crime Does Not Amount To Abetment: Delhi High Court Offences Under IT Act Punishable With 3 Years Imprisonment Are Bailable Under Section 77B: Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In KCA Data Theft Case Premature Release Can't Be Denied Citing Section 435 CrPC If Sentence Under Central Act Is Already Served: Madras High Court Suppression Of Higher Qualification To Secure Job Reserved For Lower Education Is Foundational Fraud, Sympathy Has No Role: Supreme Court MBBS Admissions | Candidate Using NIOS Marks To Meet 50% Eligibility Cannot Claim State Govt School Quota: Orissa High Court High Court Cannot Exercise Article 227 Power To Strike Off Plaint When Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Exists: Madras High Court Section 69 IEA | Onus On Propounder To Lead Secondary Evidence & Remove Suspicious Circumstances If Attesting Witnesses Are Dead: Telangana High Court

SC Rules Temporary child custody or visitation orders can't be granted in a plea for conjugal rights.

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court has ruled that under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, temporary orders granting child custody or visiting rights cannot be made.

In the current instance, the husband asserted his entitlement to restitution of conjugal rights against his wife under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. An IA was filed in the aforementioned procedure asking to be granted custody of the kid, and it was ex parte heard and decided.

The wife then petitioned the Supreme Court to shift the proceedings to Bengaluru's Family Court.

On the other hand, the husband argued that the current plea is infructuous because the section 9 petition, which the wife is attempting to have transferred, has already been decided.

She was unable to leave the kid in Bengaluru to travel to Puducherry to argue both petitions, therefore it appears that she was denied a fair trial, the Bench of Justices Surya Kant and JK Maheshwari stated at the outset.

The husband should have brought a petition under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, according to the court, rather than obtaining a decree under Section 9 proceedings.

The court determined that the order awarding the husband temporary custody of the child is unlawful in this situation.

The court overturned the challenged ruling and ordered that the current proceedings be transferred to the Family Court in Bengaluru.

Priyanka vs Santosh kumar

Latest Legal News