LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     25 September 2010

WELFARE in HMGA, 1956 defined by Hon'ble SC

Held: Supreme Court in its recent order has said that the "Welfare" mentioned in the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 has to be construed literally and must be taken in its widest sense. It has stated that the moral, ethical as well as the physical well being of the child has to be considered before appointing a Guardian. In considering what will be the Welfare of the minor, the court shall have regard to the age, s*x and religion of the minor, the characters and capacity of the proposed guardian and his nearness of kin to the minor, the wishes, if any, of a deceased parent, and any existing or previous relations of the proposed guardian with the minor or his property. And if the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preferences, then the court may consider that preferences. The Court shall not appoint or declare any person to be a guardian against his (her) will. Thus in the above referred case Justice Sathasivam in the appeal filed by Shyamrao Maroti Korwate against the order of the Bombay High Court allowed the appeal appointing the appellant, the grandfather of the child as guardian of the minor child in place of the father of the child, who got remarried after the death of his first wife and was also having another child through the second wife. 

 

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2817 OF 2008

 

 

Shyamrao Maroti Korwate                .... Appellant (s)

 

                                        Versus

 

Deepak Kisanrao Tekam                  .... Respondent(s)

 

Date: SEPTEMBER 14, 2010.


JUDGMENT

 

P. Sathasivam, J.

 


1)
   This appeal, pertaining to the custody of a minor  child, is directed against the final judgment and order dated 17.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in First appeal No. 501 of 2007 whereby the High Court reversed the judgment and order dated 16.04.2007 passed by the District Judge, Yavatmal, Maharashtra.



2)    Brief facts:



(a)   On 03.06.2002, the marriage of the respondent was solemnized with Kaveri, the daughter of the appellant herein. Out of the said wedlock, on 23.03.2003, a son, namely, Vishwajeet @ Sangharsh was born. After giving birth to son, on the same day, the respondent's wife died due to excessive bleeding. Vishwajeet is residing with the appellant-maternal grandfather and his family since his birth.    After the death of his wife, the respondent contracted second marriage and also has a son from the second marriage.

 


(b) On 07.08.2003, the appellant-maternal grandfather of the minor filed an application in the Court of District Judge II, Yavatmal, Maharashtra under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as `Act 1890') being M.J.C. No. 10 of 2003 for appointing him as guardian of the minor Vishwajeet. The said application was opposed by the respondent and, on 15.10.2003, he

also filed an application under Section 25 of the Act 1890 being M.J.C. No. 12 of 2003 for the custody of his son.

 


The District Judge by a common judgment dated 16.04.2007 in both    the proceedings, allowed the application filed by the appellant herein and appointed him as a Guardian of Vishwajeet till he attains the age of 12 years and directed him to deposit the amounts inheritable by the minor due to the demise of his mother, in any Nationalized Bank in Fixed deposit in the name of minor, which may be renewed from time to time till he attains majority and also directed that nobody can withdraw the principal or interest amount without prior permission of the Court.               


The District Judge further directed the newly appointed guardian to allow the respondent-father to meet the minor once in a month. The

application filed by the respondent was dismissed by the District Judge with the liberty to file such application after completion of the age of 12 years by the minor.

 


(c) Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent herein filed First Appeal No. 501 of 2007 in the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench,
Nagpur.

On 17.10.2007, the learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein and directed the appellant herein to hand over the custody of the child to the respondent. Challenging the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal by way of special leave petition before this Court.

 


3) Heard Mr. Anantbhushan Kanade, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Ms. Anagha S. Desai, learned counsel for the respondent.


4) The appellant herein is the maternal grandfather of the child and the respondent is the father of the child. Since we have already narrated the events for filing the petition for custody/guardian of the child, there is no need to traverse the same once again. Before considering the claim of both sides, it is useful to refer the statutory

provisions relevant for our purpose.

 

5) The Act 1890 consolidates and amends the law relating to guardians and wards. Section 4 of the Act defines "minor" as "a person who has not attained the age of majority". "Guardian" means "a person having the care of the person of a minor or of his property, or of both his person and property". "Ward" is defined as "a minor for

whose person or property or both there is a guardian".


Sections 5 to 19 of the Act relate to appointment and declaration of guardians. Section 7 thereof deals with "power of the Court to make order as to guardianship" which reads as under:

 

     "7. Power of the court to make order as to guardianship.

     --(1) Where the court is satisfied that it is for the welfare of a

     minor that an order should be made--

     (a) appointing a guardian of his person or property, or both,

     or

     (b) declaring a person to be such a guardian, the court may

     make an order accordingly.

 

     (2) An order under this section shall imply the removal of

     any guardian who has not been appointed by will or other

     instrument or appointed or declared by the court.

 

     (3) Where a guardian has been appointed by will or other

     instrument or appointed or declared by the Court, an order

     under this section appointing or declaring another person to

     be guardian in his stead shall not be made until the powers

     of the guardian appointed or declared as aforesaid have

     ceased under the provisions of this Act."

 


6) Section 8 of the Act 1890 enumerates persons entitled to apply for an order as to guardianship. Section  9 empowers the Court having jurisdiction to entertain application for guardianship. Sections 10 to 16 deal with procedure and powers of Court. Section 17 is another material provision and may be reproduced hereunder:

 

 

     "17. Matters to be considered by the court in appointing

     guardian.--(1) In appointing or declaring the guardian of a

     minor, the court shall, subject to the provisions of this

     section, be guided by what, consistently with the law to

     which the minor is subject, appears in the circumstances to

     be for the welfare of the minor.

 

     (2) In considering what will be for the welfare of the minor,

     the Court shall have regard to the age, s*x and religion of the

     minor, the character and capacity of the proposed guardian

     and his nearness of kin to the minor, the wishes, if any, of a

     deceased parent, and any existing or previous relations of

     the proposed guardian with the minor or his property.

 

     (3) If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent

     preference, the court may consider that preference.

        Xxx xxx xxx

     (5) The Court shall not appoint or declare any person to be a

     guardian against his will."

 


7) The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as `Act 1956') is another important statute relating to minority and guardianship among the Hindus. Section 4 defines "minor" as "a person who has not completed the age of eighteen years". "Guardian" means "a person having the care of the person of a minor or of his property or of both his person and property", and includes a "Natural guardian". "Natural guardian" means any of the guardians mentioned in Section 6 of the Act 1956.

 

 

8) Section 6 enacts as to who can be said to be a "Natural guardian". It reads thus:

 

     "6. Natural guardians of a Hindu minor.--The natural

     guardians of a Hindu minor, in respect of the minor's

     person as well as in respect of the minor's property

     (excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family

     property), are--

 

        (a) in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl -- the

        father, and after him, the mother: Provided that the

        custody of a minor who has not completed the age of

        five years shall ordinarily be with the mother;

 

        (b) in the case of an illegitimate boy or an illegitimate

        unmarried girl -- the mother, and after her, the

        father;

 

        (c) in the case of a married girl -- the husband:

        Provided that no person shall be entitled to act as the

        natural guardian of a minor under the provisions of

        this section--

        (a) if he has ceased to be a Hindu, or

        (b) if he has completely and finally renounced the

        world by becoming a hermit (vanaprastha) or an

        ascetic (yati or sanyasi).

       Explanation.--In this section, the expressions `father'

       and `mother' do not include a stepfather and a

       stepmother."



9) Section 8 thereof enumerates powers of natural guardian and Section 13 deals with welfare of minor which reads thus:

 

     "13.    Welfare    of  minor    to    be    paramount

     consideration.--

     (1) In the appointment or declaration of any person as

     guardian of a Hindu minor by a court, the welfare of the

     minor shall be the paramount consideration.

 

     (2) No person shall be entitled to the guardianship by

     virtue of the provisions of this Act or of any law relating

     to guardianship in marriage among Hindus, if the court

     is of opinion that his or her guardianship will not be for

     the welfare of the minor."

 

 

 

10) If we analyze the above provisions, one thing is clear that in a matter of custody of a minor child, the paramount consideration is the "welfare of the minor" and not rights of the parents or relatives under a statute which are in force. The word "welfare" used in Section 13 of the Act 1956 has to be construed literally and must be taken in its widest sense.

 


11) In Gaurav Nagpal vs. Sumedha Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42, this Court held:

 

     "51. The word "welfare" used in Section 13 of the Act has to

     be construed literally and must be taken in its widest sense.

     The moral and ethical welfare of the child must also weigh

     with the court as well as its physical well-being. Though the

     provisions of the special statutes which govern the rights of

     the parents or guardians may be taken into consideration,

     there is nothing which can stand in the way of the court

     exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction arising in such

     cases."

 



12) In the light of the above background, let us consider whether the custody of the minor is to be entrusted with the maternal grandfather as ordered by the District Court or with the father as directed by the High Court. We have already referred to the fact that on 23.03.2003, after giving birth to the child, the mother died and the child was taken by the maternal grandfather.               


The maternal grand-father filed a petition for custody on 07.08.2003 and father also made a similar petition for custody on 15.10.2003. Before the District Judge, it was highlighted that immediately after the death of his wife, the respondent-husband married another woman and also has a son from his second marriage. Though the exact date of marriage is not mentioned anywhere, the fact remains that within a period of one year after the death of Kaveri, daughter of the appellant herein, the respondent-husband married another woman.               


It is also highlighted by the appellant that the respondent is working as an Operator in the Maharashtra State Electricity Board at a distance of 90 kms from his  residence. It is further stated that the place where respondent is residing is a rural village and there is lack of better educational facilities. It is the claim of the maternal grandfather that he is a pensioner getting sizeable income by way of pension and

other retiree benefits and also own agricultural properties.


It is his further claim that he is living with his wife i.e. maternal grandmother of the child and other relatives such as sons and a daughter. It is also his claim that he is residing in a Taluk Centre where good educational facilities are available.

 


13) Though several allegations have been made by the parties against each other, we feel that in the absence of any specific finding by the Courts below on either of them, it is unnecessary to refer to the same. It is true that under the Act 1890, the father is the guardian of the minor child until he is found unfit to be a guardian of the minor. In deciding such question, this Court consistently held that the welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration and such a question cannot be decided merely on the basis of the rights of the parties under the law. This principle is reiterated in Anjali Kapoor (Smt.) vs. Rajiv Baijal, (2009) 7 SCC 322.


14) Though father is the natural guardian in respect of a minor child, taking note of the fact that welfare of the minor to be of paramount consideration inasmuch as the respondent-father got married within a year after the death of his first wife-Kaveri and also having a son through the second marriage, residing in a rural village, working at a distance of 90 kms and of the fact that the child was all along with the maternal grand-father and his family since birth, residing in a Taluka Centre where the child is getting good education, we feel that the District Judge was justified in appointing the appellant maternal grandfather as guardian of the minor child till the age of 12 years.

 


15) The High Court reversed the said conclusion and appointed father of the child as his guardian. It is true that the learned single Judge interacted with both the parties and the child separately and noted that "the child could not be unhappy, uncomfortable and unsafe in the custody of the father". However, there is no material to show that at any point of time the respondent-father had attempted to meet the child when he was in the custody of maternal grandfather. No doubt, it is true that on attaining the age of 12 years by the minor, the father is free to make a fresh application and depending on the welfare and wish of the child, further order has to be passed in the matter of custody. It is said that as on date, the child is aged about 8 years. Our anxiety is that after four years, i.e., after attaining the age of 12 years whether the child would show any inclination to join with his father. It is relevant to note that the maternal grandfather is aged about 63 years and if his sons are married, undoubtedly the child cannot get the same love and affection from him and his family.

 



16) Inasmuch as the child has continuously been living with the maternal grandfather and his family from the date of his birth i.e. 23.03.2003 and getting good education at their hands, taking note of the position of the father of the child who is working 90 kms. away from his house in a rural village, we modify the order of the High Court and permit the appellant grandfather to have the custody of the child Vishwajeet @ Sangharsh till the age of 12 years as ordered by the District Judge. The above conclusion is based on welfare of the minor as provided in Section 13 of the Act 1956.     


Since on completion of 12 years, a fresh decision is to be taken about entrusting the custody of the minor child, while modifying the order of the High Court as mentioned above, we issue the following directions about the visitation rights of the father:

 

     “1) During long holidays/vacations covering more

     than two weeks the child will be allowed to be in
     the company of the father for a period of seven days.

 

    (2) The period shall be fixed by the father after

    due intimation to the maternal grandfather who

    shall permit the child to go with the father for

    the aforesaid period.

 

    (3) In addition to the same, twice in a month

    preferably on Saturday or Sunday or a festival

    day, maternal grand-father shall allow the child

    to visit the father from morning to evening.

    Father shall take the child and leave him back

    at the maternal grand-father's place on such

    days.'

 

    (4) The father is free to provide facilities such as

    payment of school fees, books, dress materials,

    eatables etc. during this period to develop a

    conducive relationship with the child.”

 

 

17) With the above direction, the impugned order of the High Court   is modified.  The appellant-maternal grandfather is permitted to continue the custody of the child till the age of 12 years as ordered by the District Judge. The decision regarding investment in the name of

minor child is also restored. To the extent mentioned above, the appeal is allowed. No costs.

 

                                ..........................................J.

                                 (P. SATHASIVAM)

 

                                ..........................................J.

                                 (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)

NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 14, 2010.


Thank you note of author to:
https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/profile.asp?member_id=67250



 9 Replies

R.Ranganathan (Director)     25 September 2010

Thank you also for the posting of the entire decision.

aflatoon dash (health)     25 September 2010

TajobsIndia,

I am glad that time and agin the much neglected issue of (Its my perception)  father and his role in childs life  is bought about in this forum.This judgement makes me happy and sad .I am happy to see that this judgement goes beyond the fact which torments the fathers "You just contibute the sperm genes and money" rest is  by others.It often leaves me with the feeling that "plot kisi ka registry kisi our ki". I AM HAPPY TO SEE THAT FATHERS ROLE IS NOT REDUCED TO   JUST  THAT OF A VISITOR IN CHILDS LIFE. AND HE HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO GROW A MEANINGFUL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILD BY GIVING HIM  OPPERTUNITY TO GROW AND NURTURE HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHILD in form of fixed perecentage of vaccation time and his freedom to "provide facilities such as payment of school fees, books, dress materials,eatables etc.

There can be no worst form of relational aggression against the non custodian spouse by custodial guardian by blocking any efforts of noncustodian guardian to contribute towards the child Life.Wish more rights are given to persistant ,well-intentioned and distressed fathers.

aflatoon dash (health)     26 September 2010

Welfare concept- Are there missing dimension in it???

""Welfare" mentioned in the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 has to be construed literally and must be taken in its widest sense. It has stated that the moral, ethical as well as the physical well being of the child has to be considered before appointing a Guardian. In considering what will be the Welfare of the minor, the court shall have regard to the age, s*x and religion of the minor, the characters and capacity of the proposed guardian and his nearness of kin to the minor, the wishes, if any, of a deceased parent, and any existing or previous relations of the proposed guardian with the minor or his property. And if the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preferences, then the court may consider that preferences. The Court shall not appoint or declare any person to be a guardian against his (her) wll.

Where does it caters for prgrramming of child and tutoring of the child against the absent parent.

Parental Alienation, DSM-V and ICD-11

Edited by William Bernet

About the Book

Parental alienation is a serious mental condition that affects thousands of children, adolescents, and their families. The essential feature of parental alienation is that a child – usually one whose parents are engaged in a hostile divorce – allies himself or herself strongly with one parent (the preferred parent) and rejects a relationship with the other parent (the alienated parent) without legitimate justification. Parental alienation is not simply a minor aberration in the life of a family, but a serious mental condition. Because of the false belief that the alienated parent is a dangerous person, the child loses one of the most important relationships in his or her life. When the symptoms of parental alienation are recognized, this condition is preventable and treatable in many instances. Parental alienation has been an issue in legal cases in the U.S. since at least the 1820s and it has been discussed in the mental health literature since the 1940s. This book explains why the time has come for the concept of parental alienation to be included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-V) and the International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Edition (ICD-11).

Aflatoon

 

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     26 September 2010

Discussion with the second replier to this thread; what is your legal take on below ?


1. The first thing a Family Law lawyer says in child custody cases to fathers is that “lap of mother is best suited for a child”  as if the custody case is his “personal family case” !. When a lawyer himself is not aware of what is good for the child then how a lawyer can plead / safeguard genuine interest of his client (natural guardian)?


2. The second thing a Family Court Ld. Judge does is intentionally delay the whole proceedings so that the abducted child gets “settled-in” into his / her new environs (mother’s home). Then all custody battles is run on name sake which is “visitation” based. You study 1000 case laws in custody and you will find 870 cases only visitation to father were granted at the end that also after average shelf life of 36 months of bitter custody battles in Indian Courts which is national average.


Here is comment and reproduction of today's International News Item on welfare subject and I am wonderign when Lawyers and Indian Courts may wake up its relaity when India has such a nice family fabric compared to western jurisprudence world !


3. Divorcing parents are being forced to go to custody classes so that they realise  the damage their separation inflicts on their children, it was revealed  today. Couples in
Surrey, where the scheme is being piloted, have to go to two  free evening sessions in the hope they will reconsider their behaviour. Surrey  has become the test county for the programme after district judge Alison Raeside  championed it and made it compulsory, according to The Times. The sessions are not forced on couples where either side could be in any danger and are funded by Cafcass, the children's courts service.  Classes: Parents in Surrey are having custody coaching so that they realise the effect of their separation on their children


Partners will not be sent to the same class and are placed with up to 10 others.


The current family law review could see the Separation Parent Information  Programme rolled out across
England and Wales. Early results apparently indicate  more than half of parents' change their behaviour because of the classes. Details  of the scheme emerged days after a senior judge warned middle-class parents can  damage their children permanently by using them as ammunition in the divorce  courts.


Broadside: Sir Nicholas Wall said that in family break-ups parents rarely  behave reasonably and intelligent parents are often the worst Lord Justice Wall, the country's leading family judge, told warring husbands and wives: 'There is nothing worse for most children than for their parents to  denigrate each other.'


He said that in family break-ups parents rarely behave reasonably and intelligent parents are often the worst.


'Often the parties are fighting over again the battles of the relationship, and the children are both the battlefield and the ammunition,' he said.


His broadside came in a speech on reforms to the family justice system in which he said it was vital to reduce the adversarial nature of the divorce courts.  He also attacked his fellow judges for allowing some cases to go before as many as ten different judges.


Having one judge sit in all the hearings involving a family is essential to provide consistency, Lord Justice Wall said. In his speech to the pressure group Families Need Fathers, he said: 'Separating parents who are unable to resolve issues between themselves rarely act reasonably.


'People think that post-separation parenting is easy. In fact, it is exceedingly  difficult, and as a rule of thumb my experience is that the more intelligent the  parent, the more intractable the dispute.


'Parents often find it difficult to understand that children both love and have a loyalty to both parents. There is nothing worse, for most children, than for their parents to denigrate each other.


'To use the trite phrase, each parent represents 50 per cent of the child's gene pool. If a child's mother makes it clear to the child that his or her father is worthless - and vice versa - the child's sense of self-worth can be irredeemably damaged. 'Parents simply do not realise the damage they do to their children by the battles they wage over them. A child is not a piece of property which can be parcelled up and moved around at will.' Mr Justice Wall said that it was legitimate to criticise the family courts over the number of judges who become involved in a case.  He said that, while working as an
Appeal Court judge, he found 'cases in which as many as nine or ten judges had all dealt with the same case.


'Each had had to read the papers: each had had to make a decision and, inevitably, the decisions are sometimes inconsistent,' he said. 'In short, there is a total lack of judicial continuity.


'For a number of judges all to have to read the same bundle of papers is not only a waste of valuable judicial time: it is inefficient and leads to inconsistency.'


Lord Justice Wall made his speech in the midst of a review into the family courts, which handle parental separation, child custody, fostering, adoption and also 'public' cases concerning children removed from dangerous homes by social workers.


Around 20,000 family break-ups come before the courts every year, and fathers' pressure groups have been increasingly vocal about alleged bias in favour of mothers. There have been a number of demonstrations against the failure of the courts to act against mothers who shut fathers out of their children's lives.


The Labour government considered tagging mothers to punish those who fail to abide by court orders but the idea was dropped.


Source:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315115/Separating-parents-forced-attend-custody-classes-realise-damage-children.html

1 Like

aflatoon dash (health)     26 September 2010

Tajobs India,

  1. At the outset I would say That I am very much dissatisfied with the attitude of the separating/divorcing spouse/learned advocate/Honerable judges /court procedures and justice delivered in matters relating to childrens custody/visitation .
  2. I dont have any doubts that elliminating father from childs life is form of child abuse which woman are actively indulging(there may be exceptions) and is pssively encouraged by the lack of  adequate rules and regulations on the subject,attitude and ignorance of Learned advocates and Honerable JUdges about Parental alienation.(there may be few exceptions like justice Dhingra).There is no scope in the concept of welfare for elliminating the progrramming of child.
  3. Ignorance on the part of fathers about the Parental alienation and resulting loss of intrest in pursuing the their case whereby child looses loving father permanently from his life.

REMEDY-

  1. Time bound disposal of all visitation/custody request as punjab high court asked all the courts in recent past to complete cases in 6 months.
  2. Accord visitation in all  school going kids  with physical possession of child to intrested father for few days during school holidays excepting where there is history of proved s*xual molestation and proved crminal activity in father.
  3. Maintain high degree of sceptism where child or the custodial parent views the other parent in total dark light.
  4.  The child seems to show little or no concern for the feelings of the parent being complained about ask for psychiatric evaluation.

Fathers contesting custody/alienation-

  1. Attach the research material of two page on Parental Alienation along with the petition for custody/visitation
  2. Change the lawyer if he is disintrested or is not forceful.
  3. Contest such cases yourself on the dates and be asserive and forceful.
  4. Ask for the psychiatric evaluation of yourself/yourchild and your contesting spouse
  5. Give the Research material on Parental alienation to the mental health experts /counsellars appointed by the court.REMEMBER MANY MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS IN INDIA HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT IT.
  6. Highlight in press cases where injustice to deserving father is done.

Relief-

1-verbal warning to custodial mothers if they sabotage visistation by hon Judges.

2-Fine the mother if required if child shows reluctance to meet the father .

3-Threaten the custodial parent with the change of custody.

4-Issue intelligent and flexible orders allowing father to develop meaningful relationship with the child and develop and nurture his bond with the child

5-Where obsessive alienation continues on the part of controlling parent  change the custody of child if father desires.

Aflatoon

R.Ranganathan (Director)     27 September 2010

I appreciate the very elaborate and intensive study on the subject by both Mr. Tajobsindia and Mr. Aflatoon Dash. Now today there is a reported judgement of the Supreme Court. It states that Divorce cannot be allowed to be purchased. In this matter the husband against whom divorce case and also a criminal case was instituted by his wife was pending, had declared his willingness to pay Rs. 10 lakhs as life time maintenance for wife and his daughter till she gets married, besides marriage expenses, in consideration of the dissolution of the marriage and also compounding of the criminal case against him. The High Court had allowed it but the Supreme Court on appeal rejected it.

When such types of persons are available then India can go about changing the scenario only slowly and it will take its own course and time. The parents should understand the child's position, its mental weakness, and so many other factors before going in for any type of court cases. Ultimately in any type of situation either created by mother or father, for any reason whatsoever, the real sufferer is the child whose future is affected. It  creates mental unrest, tension, hardships and what not to the child when he/she should be free from all these unnecessary and unwarranted situations and growing in a free atmosphere enjoying the life in its true sense with its immatured developing mind and body. Someone should bell the cat. How it will be possible, time will only tell.   

aflatoon dash (health)     27 September 2010

  1. I do hold judiciary in very high seteem but The quality of honerable judges and learned Advocates in family court has diluted alot.I realized instead of talking LAW point They are legal brokers fixing the cases.They lack basics of ethics .Its my individual opinion.Reducing the status of a loving and caring father to just a  visitor in child life is unacceptable.
  2. Delay in according visitation in  relationation to  faher 
  3. Awarding token visitation to father with no oppertunity in order to see a meaning relationship of  child is not destroyed.
  4. No note of obstruction/sabotaging of visitation by custodian guardian.
  5. No note of brainwashed and progrrammed child speaking against an innocent father.
  6. If one fails maintenance money its contempt but if a lady fails a visitation then it goes  rarely noticed.
  7. What about paternal grandfather/grandmother/Bua .

             I am happy when in child custody cases good judements are given.

           - I wish some one piles  judgement  covering each points like

            a-custody to father

            b-shared custody with father

              c-fine to alienating mother

               d-psychological evaluation of alienating mother

              e woman to seek permisssion of father before taking child abroad.

                f-woamn fines for abducting the child

                g- Passport deposited  before custody decided.

                 h-Paternal Grandfather given visitation

                 i-Custody changed due to persisitant alienation by mother.

AFLATOON

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     27 September 2010

All Judgments from Hon'ble SC to Division bench of various HC's on sub paras a till i exists. The day this family Law forum becomes pure Point of Law discussion remind me I will pile them in one Folder.


Till them let us enjoy sip by sip of (ladies) nimbu pani :-)

aflatoon dash (health)     27 September 2010

  1. THANKS. tajobIndia.I would love to have a proper pilling of such decesions by Indian courts on visitation/custody,child abduction/child alienation being fined  / good visitation orders/ restraining orders for woman to go abroad pending custody suit or  only after prior permission from father/visitation to paternal grandfathers.
  2. Your self sevrvice to so many people is deeply appreciated by me.
  3. I have enquired from the Aministrator Regarding deletion of my message recognizing your efforts.I am sure He will enlighten me on that.

           Aflatoon

1 Like

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query