Supreme High Court Judgment PDF

JUDGMENTS ON FAMILY COURT MATTERS
Adoption
Adoption – Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 16 – Presumption of

validity – Adoption deed signed by the natural father and mother of the child and by the
adopting father – It was approved by examining the scribe, the witnesses and the parents
giving in adoption and was duly registered – Mere fact that it does not bear the
endorsement of the natural father at the time of registration, does not raise any suspicion
as to its execution or as to its legality (Para 14) Karam Singh & Ors Vs Jagsir Singh &
Ors., 2015 (3) RCR (Civil) 45 (P&H)
Adoption – Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 16 –Presumption of

validity – An adoption deed comes into effect the moment it is signed or thumb marked
by the natural parent and the adopting parent – The only consequence of non registration
or a defective registration is that the presumption of truth, raised under Section 16 of the
Act shall not arise – Adoption deed shall have to be proved like any other ordinary fact or
document. Karam Singh & Ors Vs Jagsir Singh & Ors., 2015 (3) RCR (Civil) 45
(P&H)
Alienation of property by Guardian
Alienation of property by Guardian - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956,

Sections 8(1) and 11 – Limitation Act, 1963, Article 60 – Suit by quondam minor to set
aside such alienation – Is governed by Article 60 - Articles 109, 110 or 113 of the
Limitation Act are not applicable – To impeach the transfer of immovable property by the
guardian, the minor must file suit within the prescribed limit of 3 years after attaining
majority. (Para 27) Narayan vs Baba sahib and ors, AIR 2016 SC 1666
Alimony
Alimony/Maintenance – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 25 – Expression ‘at the

time of passing any decree’ – Encompasses all kinds of decrees such as restitution of
conjugal rights under Section 9, judicial separation under Section 10, declaring marriage
as null and void under Section 11, annulment of marriage as voidable under Section 12
and divorce under Section 13. (Para 18) Rajinder Kaur Versus Kuldeep Singh, 2010
(1) RCR (Civil) 818 P&H.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 13 - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956,
Section 6 – Custody of Child – Principle of Comity of Courts – Not appropriate that a
domestic Court having much less intimate contact with the child and having much less
close concern with a child and his or her parents (as against of a foreign Court in a given
case) should take upon itself the onerous task of determining the best interests and
welfare of the child - A foreign Court having the most intimate contact and closest
concern with the child would be better equipped and perhaps best suited to appreciate the
social and cultural values in which the child has been brought up rather than a domestic
Court. (Para 53) Surya Vadnan Vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors, AIR 2015 SC 2243
-2-
Section 6 – Custody of Child – Principle of Comity of Courts – Is essentially a principle
of self restraint applicable when a foreign Court is seized of the issue of the custody of a
child prior to the domestic Court – There may be a situation where the foreign Court
though seized of the issue does not pass any effective or substantial order or directions –
In that event, if the domestic Court were to pass an effective or substantial order or
direction prior in point of time then the foreign Court also exercise self restraint and
respect the direction or order of the domestic Court (or vice versa the order, unless there
are very good reasons not to do so). (Para 50) Surya Vadnan Vs State of Tamil Nadu
& Ors, AIR 2015 SC 2243
Section 6 –- Custody of children – Both the parents and children citizens of U.K. – The
parents have been residents of U.K. for several years and worked for gain over there –
Also owning immovable property (jointly) in U.K. – Children born and brought up in
U.K. and elder daughter studying in a school in U.K. until she was brought to India –
Younger daughter also joined a school in U.K. – Mere fact the children were admitted to
school in India, with the consent of father is not conclusive of his consent to be
permanent or long term residents of the children in India – Directions issued to mother
for enabling her to present an effective case before the foreign Court (Paras 72 and 73).
Surya Vadnan Vs State of Tamil Nadu & Ors, AIR 2015 SC 2243
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 22, Rules 3 and 4 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
Sections 7, 11 and 13 – Divorce Proceedings – Wife challenged decree of nullity
declaring the marriage as void – Wife died during the pendency of appeal – Applicant is
the only child from the marriage in question – She wants to pursue the appeal – The
legal right of the applicant to inherit the ancestral property of her parents will be affected
– Her social status will also be at stake – Her matrimonial prospects may also be affected
– Applicant being the affected party from the impugned decree is entitled to pursue the
appeal filed by her mother. (Para 6) Balwinder Kaur Versus Gurmukh Singh, 2007(3)
RCR (Civil) 433 P&H
Constitution of India
Constitution of India, Article 136 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13 – Divorce –
Held that the orders of the Courts below has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice to the
wife who has been constrained into living with a dead relationship for over 13 year –
Resultantly agony and injustice caused to the wife – Fit case for interference under
Article 136 of the Constitution – Findings of the Courts below reversed. (Para 50) Vinita
Saxena Vs Pankaj Pandit, 2006(2) RCR(Civil) 302 (SC)
Constitution of India, Article 226 - Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Sections 7, 9 and 12
– Custody of minor children – Habeas Corpus petition by father – Interest of the children
– Required full and thorough enquiry – In spite of the orders passed by the Court in USA,
it was not proper for the High Court who has allowed the Habeas Corpus writ petition
and directed the father to hand over the custody of the children to the mother and permit
him to take them away to USA – High Court should have directed the father to initiate
-3-
appropriate proceedings in which said enquiry can be held. (Para 6). Sarita Sharma Vs
Sushil Sharma, 2000 (2) RCR (Civil) 367 (SC)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 - Family Courts Act 1984, Section 7 -
Applicability to Muslim Women – While relying upon the law laid down in the case of
‘Shamin Bano Vs. Asraf Khan’ , 2014 (2 RCR (Civil) 820), it was held that Section 125
Cr.P.C. has been rightly held to be applicable by the learned Family Judge. (Para 10)
Shamima Farooqui Vs Shahid Khan, 2015(5) SCC 705
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 – Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,
1956 – Maintenance – Once the right under the provisions in Section 125 Cr.P.C. is
established by proof of necessary conditions mentioned therein, it cannot be defeated by
further reference to the personal law. (Para 14) Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Versus
State of Gujarat and Ors., 2005 (1) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 541
1956 – Scope – No inconsistency of Section 125 CrPC and the provisions of Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Scope of the two laws is different. (Para 9)
Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Versus State of Gujarat and Ors., 2005 (1) Apex
Court Judgments (SC) 541
1956 – Maintenance – Estoppel – Contention that the appellant was not informed about
the respondent’s earlier marriage when she married, repelled – Principle of estoppels can
not be present to the service to defeat the provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Para 16)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 –
Maintenance – Upon request made by wife of appellant, Director General of Police
directed payment of 50% salary of appellant directly to his wife and two minor children –
Order upheld taking into account the totality of the circumstances – However, 50% of the
salary to be calculated after deducting the amount of Income Tax paid by the appellant.
(Paras 4 to 7) Vijay Kumar Vs State of Punjab & others, 2013(3) RCR (Civil) 323
(P&H)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 – Maintenance – Enormous delay in

disposal of the proceeding u/s 125 Cr.P.C. – Most of the time the husband had taken
adjournments and some times the Court dealt with the matter showing total laxity – The
circumstances required grant of maintenance from the date of application. (Para 16)
Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs Meena and others, AIR 2014 SC 2875
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 – Maintenance – For awarding maintenance
from the date of the application, express order is necessary – No special reasons,
however, are required to be recorded by the Court. – Judgment in ‘Shail Kumari Devi
and anr. Vs. Krishan Bhagwal Pathak alias Kishun B. Pathak’ 2008(3) RCR (Crl.) 842,
-4-
relied upon. (Para 15) Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs Meena and others, AIR 2014 SC
2875
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 – Maintenance – Quantum – Husband took
voluntary retirement – If 40% of the commutation is taken into account then the pension
of the husband amounts to ` 11,535/- - In addition to his pension, he had received
encashment of commutation to the extent of 40% i.e. ` 3,84,500/- and other retiral dues
to the tune of ` 16,01,455/- - Hence, solely because the husband has retired, there was no
justification to reduce the maintenance amount by 50% - Orders passed by the High
Court set aside – Orders of family Court restored . (Paras 19 and 20) Shamima Farooqui
Vs Shahid Khan, 2015(5) SCC 705
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 – Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on
Divorce) Act, 1986, Sections 3 – Muslim wife – Wife had already taken recourse to
Section 3 of the Act after divorce took place and obtained relief which has been upheld
by the High Court – During pendency of her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
divorce took place – Wife preferred an application under Section 3 of the Act over grant
of Mahr and return of articles – Magistrate provided for return of articles, payment of
quantum of Mahr and also granted maintenance of Iddat period - In effect, no
maintenance had been granted beyond the Iddat period – Her application under Section
125 CrPC was continuing - Held that even if an application under Section 3 of the Act
was filed, the parameters of Section 125 CrPC would have been made applicable. (Para
15) Shamim Bano Vs Asraf Khan, 2014(2) RCR (Civil) 820 (SC)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 125 and 127 – Maintenance – Enhancement –
Contention that no amendment made to the Claim petition seeking enhancement, repelled
– Section 127 Cr.P.C. permits increase in the quantum – Maintenance amount to the child
enhanced. (Para 22) Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Versus State of Gujarat and Ors.,
2005 (1) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 541
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 – Maintenance – Expression ‘Wife’ –

Refers to only legally married wife. (Para 7) Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Versus
Cruelty
Cruelty - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13 – Wife having married during the
subsistence of her first marriage has caused cruelty to the first husband – Husband
entitled to decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Act (Para 20) Swaranjit Kaur
Versus Lt. Col. Avtar Singh & Ors, 2016(5) RCR(Civil) 163 P&H
Cruelty – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1)(a) – Divorce –Wife leveling false
allegations against the husband regarding his illicit relations – Held that on the basis of
evidence on record, the Trial Court was perfectly justified in holding that the wife had
treated the petitioner with cruelty – Husband entitled to a decree of divorce on the ground
of cruelty besides the ground of desertion. (Para 7) Vijay Kumar Duggal Vs Kamlesh
Kumari, 2005(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 271 (P&H)
-5-
Cruelty – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1)(a) - Word ‘Cruelty’ has been used in
relation to human conduct or human behavior – It is a conduct in relation to or in respect
of matrimonial duties and obligations adversely affecting the other – Cruelty may be
mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. (Para 29). Vinita Saxena Vs Pankaj
Pandit, 2006(2) RCR(Civil) 302 (SC)
Custom
Custom – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 5 and 11 – Void marriage – Custom to be
pleaded and proved – No evidence to prove existence of any such custom in the
community – Parties by which the divorce can be granted – Appellant failed to
substantiate his plea that his earlier marriage stood dissolved by legal means – Order of
Family Court allowing petition under Section 11 filed by the respondent wife – Upheld.
(Para 14) Kala Singh Versus Jaspreet Kaur , 2016(3) RCR (Civil) P&H
Custom – Plea of - To be pleaded and proved – In the absence thereof, no presumption

of custom can be drawn. Rajinder Kaur Versus Kuldeep Singh, 2010 (1) RCR
(Civil) 818 P&H.
Customary Divorce
Customary Divorce – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 11 and 29 – Nullity of

marriage – Held that it stands established on the record that there is a custom amongst
Jat Sikhs of District Sangrur, permitting dissolution of marriage or divorce through
writing executed by the parties in this regard – As such the divorce would be recognized
in view of Section 29(2) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the law laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court and Delhi High Court – Trial Court rightly found that the marriage
between the parties could not be annulled under Section 11 of the Act, in as much as,
respondent had validly obtained a divorce from her previous husband at the time of her
marriage had taken place with the petitioner - Findings of the Trial Court affirmed, in
this regard. (Paras 18 and 19) Jasbir Singh Versus Inderjeet Kaur, 2003(3) RCR
(Civil) 503 P&H
Custody of Child
Custody of Child - Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 13 - Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 – Principle of Comity of Courts – Not appropriate
that a domestic Court having much less intimate contact with the child and having much
less close concern with a child and his or her parents (as against of a foreign Court in a
given case) should take upon itself the onerous task of determining the best interests and
Custody of child – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Sections 7 and 17 – Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955, Sections 13B and 26 –Principles of law as laid down in ‘Rosy Jacob Vs.
-6-
Jacob Achakramakka’, (1973) 1 SCC 840 are equally applicable in dealing with the
custody of a child under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act. (Para 19) Vikram Vir
Vohra Vs Shalini Bhalla, AIR 2010 SC 1675
Custody of child – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 7 – Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, Sections 13B and 26 –Parties already obtained divorce on mutual consent – Issue
of custody of minor child – Respondent mother getting better job opportunity in Australia
– She cannot be asked to choose between her child and her career – Separating the child
from his mother will be disastrous to both – Orders passed by the High Court affirming
the order of the Trial Court in favour of the respondent-mother upheld. (Paras 23 to 25).
Vikram Vir Vohra Vs Shalini Bhalla, AIR 2010 SC 1675
Custody of child – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 25 – Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 –Paramount consideration – Welfare of the child and
not rights of the parents. (Para 35) Gaurav Nagpal Vs Sumedha Nagpal, 2008(4)
RCR (Civil) 928
Custody of children – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 7 – Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, Sections 13B and 26 – Parties already obtained divorce on mutual consent – Issue
as to whether the custody of child should be given to father or the mother or partially to
one and partially to other – Factors to be considered (a) Wishes of the child concerned,
and (b) to assess the psychological impact, if any, on the change in custody after
obtaining the opinion of a child’s Psychiatrist or a child welfare worker. (Para 4)
Mamata Alias Anju Vs. Ashok Jagannath Bharuka, 2005 (12) SCC 452
Custody of child – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 7 – Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 –High Court directing handing over the custody of the
child to the Institution, where the child is admitted for education - Held that handing over
of custody to any Institution, while ignoring the claim of a parent, especially the mother
of the child, is not acceptable. (Para 3) Beata Agnieszka Sobieraj versus State of
Himachal Pradesh, 2016(4) RCR (Civil) 4
Custody of minor child – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 25 – Hindu Minority
and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 –The Grandmother of the minor, who was given
the custody of the child by virtue of compromise has since expired - Paternal uncle and
paternal aunt have their separate family units to be taken care of by them – Nothing on
record to indicate that the mother had any interest adverse to that of the minor in the
given set of facts – Welfare of child lies with her. (Para 12). Bimla and others Vs
Anita, 2015(3) RCR (Civil) 153 (SC)
Custody of minor child – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 25 – Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955, Sections 13B and 26 –The word ‘welfare’ used in Section 13 of the Act has to
be construed liberally 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 stands in the way of
the Court exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction arising in such cases. (Para 43)
Gaurav Nagpal Vs Sumedha Nagpal, 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 928
-7-
Custody of minor child – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Sections 7, 12 and 25 - Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Sections 6 and 13 – Fitness of father – It is not the
‘negative test’ that the father is not ’unfit’ or disqualified to have custody of his son/
daughter is relevant but the ‘positive test’ that such custody could be in the welfare of the
minor which is material – On that basis the Court could exercise the power to grant or
refuse custody of minor in favour of father, mother or any other guardian. (Para 62) Nil
Ratan Kundu and anr Vs Abhijit Kundu, 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 936 (SC)
Custody of minor child – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 13B and 26 – Guardians
and Wards Act, 1890, Section 25 – Child living since long with the father – Held that by
flouting various orders, even leaving the initiation of contempt proceedings, father has
managed to keep custody of child – He cannot be beneficiary of his own wrongs – Order
of the High Court granting custody of the child to the mother upheld with modification
regarding the aspect the visitation rights of the father. (Paras 44, 45 and 47) Gaurav
Nagpal Vs Sumedha Nagpal, 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 928
Custody of minor child – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 26 – Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 - Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 25 –
Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 10 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 7 Rule 11 -
Divorce by mutual consent – By way of judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the
custody of the minor was given to the father – Mother was given visitation rights only –
Mother filed petition for modifying the said judgment and decree to the extent that
exclusive custody of the minor be granted to her and the father be restrained from
forcibly taking away the minor from her custody and she be appointed as guardian for all
purposes – Held that this petition under Section 26 of the Act was maintainable – Order
of the Trial Court dismissing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with
Section 10 of the Family Courts Act for rejection of the petition upheld. (Para 14)
Mayank bhargava vs Jyoti Bhargava, 2015(2) PLR 15
Custody of child – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 13 – Child
removed by a parent from one country to another in contravention of the orders of the
Court where the parties had set up their matrimonial home – The Court in the country to
which the child has been removed must first consider the question whether the Court
could conduct an elaborate enquiry on the question of custody or by dealing with the
matter summarily order a parent to return custody of the child to the country from which
the child was removed. (Para 20). Dr. V.Ravi Chandran Vs Union of India & others,
2010 (1) SCC 174
Custody of Child - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 – Civil
Procedure Code, 1908, Section 13 -– Principle of Comity of Courts – Is essentially a
principle of self restraint applicable when a foreign Court is seized of the issue of the
custody of a child prior to the domestic Court – There may be a situation where the
foreign Court though seized of the issue does not pass any effective or substantial order
or directions – In that event, if the domestic Court were to pass an effective or substantial
order or direction prior in point of time then the foreign Court also exercise self restraint
and respect the direction or order of the domestic Court (or vice versa the order, unless
there are very good reasons not to do so). (Para 50) Surya Vadnan Vs State of Tamil
Nadu & Ors, AIR 2015 SC 2243
-8-
Custody of children - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 – Civil
Procedure Code, 1908, Section 13 - Both the parents and children citizens of U.K. – The
Custody of Minor child – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Sections 5, 6 and
8 – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 7 – Held that it is the desire, interest,
welfare of the minor which is crucial and ultimate consideration that must guide the
determination required to be made by the Court. (Para 14) Gaytri Bajaj Vs Jiten
Bhalla, 2012(4) RCR (Civil) 603 (SC)
Custody of Minor child – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Sections 5, 6 and
8 – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 7 –Visitation Rights – The children, one of
whom is on the verge of attaining majority, do not want to go with their mother – Both
appear to be happy in the company of their father who also appears to be in a position to
look after them – Held that any visitation right to the mother would be adverse to the
interest of the children. (Para 15) Gaytri Bajaj Vs Jiten Bhalla, 2012(4) RCR (Civil)
603 (SC)
Custody of Minor child – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Sections 6 and 12
–Held that appellant father (Member of Indian Administrative Service) with the help of
his father (Professor) will be able to take very good care of the children – Mother is not in
a position to look after the educational need of the elder son – It would be in the interest
of the children that they stay with the father – Visitation rights given to mother. (Paras 16
to 18) Shaleen Kabra Vs Shiwani Kabra, 2012 (2) RCR (Civil) 974 (SC)
Custody of minor child – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Sections 6 and 13
– Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Sections 7, 12 and 25 – Indian Penal Code, 1860,
Section 498A - Complaint against father alleging and attributing death of mother and a
case under Section 498A IPC – A relevant factor – Upon enquiry by the Supreme Court,
the minor unequivocally refused to go with his father or to stay with him – Stated that he
was very happy with his maternal grand-parents and would like to continue to stay with
them – Not proper to give custody of the minor to his father. (Paras 72, 83 and 84) Nil
Custody of minor child – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 – Order
of High Court runs counter to the provisions contained in Section 6 as it incorrectly shifts
the burden on the mother to show her suitability for temporary custody of the minor child
– Order set aside. (Para 18) Roann Sharma Vs Arun Sharma, AIR 2015 SC 2232
Custody of minor child – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 –
Visitation rights – Distinct from custody or interim custody orders – Essentially they
enable the parent who does not have interim custody to be able to meet the child without
-9-
removing him/ her from the custody of other parent – If a child is allowed to spend
several hours, or even days away from the parent, who has been granted custody by the
Court, temporary custody of the child stands temporarily transferred. (Para 18) Roann
Sharma Vs Arun Sharma, AIR 2015 SC 2232
Minor an American citizen – Spent his initial years there – Parties obtained series of
consent orders concerning his custody/ parenting rights, maintenance etc. from competent
Court of jurisdiction in America – Merely because the child has been brought to India,
the custody issue concerning him does not deserve to be gone into by the Court in India –
It would be in accord with the principles of comity as well as on facts to return the child
back to USA and enable the parties to establish the case before the Courts in USA. (Para
21) Dr. V.Ravi Chandran Vs Union of India & others, 2010 (1) SCC 174
Earlier, husband, was directed to provide the initial expenses of wife and minor child for
travelling to and studying in UK for atleast a month to attend and contest the proceedings
initiated by the husband before the Court in UK – Further directions issued to the
husband regarding bearing of various expenses. (Para 9) Mrs.Shilpa Aggarwal Vs
Mr.Aviral Mittal & anr, 2010(3) RCR (Civil) 433 (SC)
Paramount Consideration – Welfare and custody of the child and not rights of the parents
under a statute – Each case has to be decided on its own facts and other decided cases can
hardly serve as binding precedents in so far as the factual aspects of the case are
concerned (Para 14). Mausami Moitra Ganguli Vs Jayant Ganguli, 2008 (4) RCR
(Civil) 551(SC)
Nothing on record to suggest that the welfare of the child is in any way in peril in the
hands of the father – Minor has been living and studying in Allahabad in a good school –
Dislocation of minor, at this stage, from Allahabad would not only impede his schooling,
it may also cause emotional strain and depression on him – Interest and welfare will be
best served if he continues to be in the custody of the father. (Para 17) Mausami Moitra
Ganguli Vs Jayant Ganguli, 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 551 (SC)
Custody of minor children – Constitution of India, Article 226 - Guardians and Wards
Act, 1890, Sections 7, 9 and 12 –Habeas Corpus petition by father – Interest of the
children – Required full and thorough enquiry – In spite of the orders passed by the Court
in USA, it was not proper for the High Court who has allowed the Habeas Corpus writ
petition and directed the father to hand over the custody of the children to the mother and
permit him to take them away to USA – High Court should have directed the father to
initiate appropriate proceedings in which said enquiry can be held. (Para 6). Sarita
Sharma Vs Sushil Sharma, 2000 (2) RCR (Civil) 367 (SC)
Custody of minor children – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 26 –Minors are in the
care and custody of the mother – Receiving maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. from
the father – Both the children are school going – Very difficult to dislocate them from the
place like Chandigarh, where the education facilities are comparatively better than
-10-
Faridabad, and send them to the place of the father, where none is there to look after them
at his back – Moreover, due to long separation from their father, the children have lost
interest in him – Orders granting custody of the children to her mother upheld. (Paras 5 to
7) Rajan Jairath Vs Mrs.Monita Mehta, 2013 (1) RCR (Civil) 546 (P&H)
Custody of minor girl – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 -
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Sections 7 and 25 – After having obtained the custody
of the minor child, the father does not appear to have neglected the minor or to look after
all her needs – The child appears to be happy in his company and is also doing
consistently well in school – Father appears to be financially stable and is also not
disqualified in any way from being the guardian of the minor child – The child also
expressed her preference to be with the father with whom she feels more comfortable –
Interest of the minor child will be best served, if she remains with the father. (Paras 27 to
29) Sheila B.Das Vs P.R.Sugasree, 2006 (1) RCR (Civil) 758 (SC)
Decree of Foreign Court
Decree of foreign Court – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 –
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13 – Conflict of laws – This theory prefers the
jurisdiction of the State which has the most intimate contact with the issues arising in the
case – No relief could be granted to the appellant given her conduct in removing the
minor child from USA in defiance of the Court of competent jurisdiction. (Para 21)
Arathi Bandi Vs Bandi Jagadrakshaka Rao, 2013 (3) RCR (Civil) 968 (SC)
Decree of foreign Court – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 9 – Jurisdiction –
Simply because the Foreign Court has taken a particular view on any aspect concerning
the welfare of the minor is not enough for the Courts in this country to shut out an
independent consideration of the matter. (Para 31) Ruchi Majoo Vs Sanjeev Majoo,
AIR 2011 SC 1952
Decree of nullity
Decree of nullity – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 5, 11 and 12 –Using of the words
that the marriage was annulled by a decree of nullity ipso facto does not mean that the
marriage was annulled under Section 12 of the Act – Wrong mentioning of this Section in
the petition and the impugned order will not make any difference. (Para 4) Vinod Versus
Smt. Reetu, 2012(1) Law Herald 901
Disposal of property
Disposal of property – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 27 –Interim relief – Family
Court directed Court Receiver to take possession of the flat from husband and induct wife
in the flat during the pendency of the appeal – Held that the family Court, by way of
interim relief, has granted main relief itself – Not sustainable – Order set aside. (Paras 3
to 6) Mehul Mahendra Thakkar Vs Meena Mehul Thakkar, 2009 (14) SCC 48
Disposal of property – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 27 – The direction for disposal
by Matrimonial Court – Can be only in relation to the property which may belong jointly
to both the husband and wife – Exclusive property to one of the spouses cannot be a
-11-
subject of direction under Section 27 of the Act. (Para 3) Anita Vs Rakesh, 2010(5)
Law Herald 3579
Divorce
Divorce – Constitution of India, Article 136 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13 –
Divorce – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1)(a) – Cruelty – Wife leveling false
Divorce – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 11 and 13 (1)(vii) - Evidence Act 1872,
Section 108 –Person not heard alive for seven years – Just because a spouse was not
heard of for seven long years, the other spouse cannot contract second marriage – A party
taking such plea should first establish such a plea – It was established that the first
husband was very much alive when the wife contracted second marriage – Such a
marriage is taken illegal, null and void. (Paras 12 and 14) Swaranjit Kaur Versus Lt.
Col. Avtar Singh & Ors, 2016(5) RCR(Civil) 163 P&H
Divorce - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13 –Mental Cruelty – Willful or intentional
denial of sexual relation by a spouse – Amounts to mental cruelty – Particularly when
parties are young and newly married – Can form basis for divorce. (Para 13) Sanjay
Kumar Vs Bhateri, (2013) 3 RCR (Civil) 223 (P&H)
Divorce Proceedings
Divorce Proceedings – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 7, 11 and 13 – Civil

Procedure Code, 1908, Order 22, Rules 3 and 4 – Wife challenged decree of nullity
declaring the marriage as void – Wife died during the pendency of appeal – Applicant is
the only child from the marriage in question – She wants to pursue the appeal – The
legal right of the applicant to inherit the ancestral property of her parents will be affected
– Her social status will also be at stake – Her matrimonial prospects may also be affected
– Applicant being the affected party from the impugned decree is entitled to pursue the
appeal filed by her mother. (Para 6) Balwinder Kaur Versus Gurmukh Singh, 2007(3)
RCR (Civil) 433 P&H
Enhancement of maintenance
Enhancement of maintenance – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 26 – Change in

circumstances – Party can approach the Family Court again as an order under Section 26
-12-
of the Act is never final – Decree passed thereunder is always subject to modification.
(Para 9) Padmja Sharma Vs Ratan Lal Sharma, 2000(2) RCR (Civil) 590 (SC)
Estoppel
Estoppel – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 – Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956 – Maintenance –Contention that the appellant was not informed
about the respondent’s earlier marriage when she married, repelled – Principle of
estoppels can not be present to the service to defeat the provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C.
(Para 16) Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Versus State of Gujarat and Ors., 2005 (1)
Apex Court Judgments (SC) 541
Evidence Act 1872
Evidence Act 1872, Section 108 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 11 and 13 (1)(vii) -
Divorce – Person not heard alive for seven years – Just because a spouse was not heard of
for seven long years, the other spouse cannot contract second marriage – A party taking
such plea should first establish such a plea – It was established that the first husband was
very much alive when the wife contracted second marriage – Such a marriage is taken
illegal, null and void. (Paras 12 and 14) Swaranjit Kaur Versus Lt. Col. Avtar Singh
& Ors, 2016(5) RCR(Civil) 163 P&H
Family Courts Act, 1984
Family Courts Act 1984, Section 7, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 –
Applicability to Muslim Women – While relying upon the law laid down in the case of
‘Shamin Bano Vs. Asraf Khan’ , 2014 (2 RCR (Civil) 820), it was held that Section 125
Cr.P.C. has been rightly held to be applicable by the learned Family Judge. (Para 10)
Shamima Farooqui Vs Shahid Khan, 2015(5) SCC 705
Family Courts Act, 1984, Sections 7 and 8 - Jurisdiction - In case, there is a dispute on
the matrimonial status of any person, a declaration in that regard has to be sought only
before the Family Court – It makes no difference as to whether it is an affirmative relief
or a negative relief – What is important is the declaration regarding the matrimonial
status. (Para 7) Balram Yadav vs Fulmaniya Yadav, AIR 2016 SC 2161
Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 10 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 26 – Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 - Guardians and Wards Act, 1890,
Section 25 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 7 Rule 11 - Custody of minor child –
-13-
Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 20 – Overriding effect – The Act has an overriding
effect on other laws. (Para 7) Balram Yadav vs Fulmaniya Yadav, AIR 2016 SC
2161
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Sections 7, 9 and 12 - Constitution of India, Article 226
-– Custody of minor children – Habeas Corpus petition by father – Interest of the
children – Required full and thorough enquiry – In spite of the orders passed by the Court
in USA, it was not proper for the High Court who has allowed the Habeas Corpus writ
petition and directed the father to hand over the custody of the children to the mother and
permit him to take them away to USA – High Court should have directed the father to
initiate appropriate proceedings in which said enquiry can be held. (Para 6). Sarita
Sharma Vs Sushil Sharma, 2000 (2) RCR (Civil) 367 (SC)
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Sections 7 and 17 - Custody of child – Custody orders –
Nature – Custody orders are always considered interlocutory orders – By the nature of
such proceedings custody orders cannot be made rigid and final – Capable of being
altered and moulded keeping in mind the needs of the child. (Para 16). Vikram Vir
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Sections 7 and 17 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections
13B and 26 – Custody of child – Principles of law as laid down in ‘Rosy Jacob Vs. Jacob
Achakramakka’, (1973) 1 SCC 840 are equally applicable in dealing with the custody of
a child under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act. (Para 19) Vikram Vir Vohra Vs
Shalini Bhalla, AIR 2010 SC 1675
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 7 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 13B
and 26 – Custody of child – Parties already obtained divorce on mutual consent – Issue of
custody of minor child – Respondent mother getting better job opportunity in Australia –
She cannot be asked to choose between her child and her career – Separating the child
and 26 – Custody of children – Parties already obtained divorce on mutual consent –
Issue as to whether the custody of child should be given to father or the mother or
partially to one and partially to other – Factors to be considered (a) Wishes of the child
concerned, and (b) to assess the psychological impact, if any, on the change in custody
after obtaining the opinion of a child’s Psychiatrist or a child welfare worker. (Para 4)
and 26 – Custody of minor child – Child living since long with the father – Held that by
flouting various orders, even leaving the initiation of contempt proceedings, father has
managed to keep custody of child – He cannot be beneficiary of his own wrongs – Order
of the High Court granting custody of the child to the mother upheld with modification
-14-
regarding the aspect the visitation rights of the father. (Paras 44, 45 and 47) Gaurav
Nagpal Vs Sumedha Nagpal, 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 928
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 25 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 26 –
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 - Custody of minor child –
Divorce by mutual consent – Whether a separate petition under Section 26 of the Hindu
Marriage Act for variation of the order of the custody of child is maintainable or an
application in the earlier petition is required to be filed – Held that both the remedies are
available – It is only after having chosen one remedy that it is incumbent upon the party
to pursue the remedies thereunder in accordance with law. (Para 7) Mayank bhargava
vs Jyoti Bhargava, 2015(2) PLR 15
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 25 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 26 –
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 - Family Courts Act, 1984,
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 7 – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,
1956, Section 6 – Custody of child – High Court directing handing over the custody of
the child to the Institution, where the child is admitted for education - Held that handing
over of custody to any Institution, while ignoring the claim of a parent, especially the
mother of the child, is not acceptable. (Para 3) Beata Agnieszka Sobieraj versus State
of Himachal Pradesh, 2016(4) RCR (Civil) 4
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Sections 7, 15 and 19 – Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6(b) – Issuance of birth certificate – If a single parent /
unwed mother applies for the issuance of the birth certificate for a child born from her
womb, the Authorities concerned may only require her to furnish the affidavit to this
effect – Must thereupon issue the birth certificate, unless there is a Court direction to the
contrary – It is the responsibility of the State to ensure that no citizen suffers any
inconvenience or disadvantage, merely because the parents failed or neglect to register
the birth. (Para 19) ABC (Karuna Purti) Vs State (NCT of Delhi), 2015(3) RCR
(Civil) 766 (SC)
Guardianship Act, 1956, Sections 6 and 13 – Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 498A -
Custody of minor child – Complaint against father alleging and attributing death of
mother and a case under Section 498A IPC – A relevant factor – Upon enquiry by the
Supreme Court, the minor unequivocally refused to go with his father or to stay with him
– Stated that he was very happy with his maternal grand-parents and would like to
continue to stay with them – Not proper to give custody of the minor to his father. (Paras
-15-
72, 83 and 84) Nil Ratan Kundu and anr Vs Abhijit Kundu, 2008 (3) RCR (Civil)
936 (SC)
1956, Section 6 – Custody of child – Paramount consideration – Welfare of the child and
not rights of the parents. (Para 35) Gaurav Nagpal Vs Sumedha Nagpal, 2008(4)
RCR (Civil) 928
Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6(b) – Whether it is imperative for an unwed mother to
specifically notify the putative father of the child, whom she has given birth to of her
petition for appointment as guardian of a child? – Held No - If a single parent / unwed
mother applies for the issuance of the birth certificate for a child born from her womb,
the Authorities concerned may only require her to furnish the affidavit to this effect –
Must thereupon issue the birth certificate, unless there is a Court direction to the contrary.
(Paras 1 and 19) ABC (Karuna Purti) Vs State (NCT of Delhi), 2015(3) RCR (Civil)
766 (SC)
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Sections 7 and 25 – Hindu Minority and Guardianship
Act, 1956, Section 6 - Custody of minor girl – After having obtained the custody of the
minor child, the father does not appear to have neglected the minor or to look after all
her needs – The child appears to be happy in his company and is also doing consistently
well in school – Father appears to be financially stable and is also not disqualified in any
way from being the guardian of the minor child – The child also expressed her preference
to be with the father with whom she feels more comfortable – Interest of the minor child
will be best served, if she remains with the father. (Paras 27 to 29) Sheila B.Das Vs
P.R.Sugasree, 2006 (1) RCR (Civil) 758 (SC)
1956, Sections 5, 6 and 8 – Custody of Minor child – Held that it is the desire, interest,
1956, Sections 5, 6 and 8 – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 7 – Custody of
Minor child – Visitation Rights – The children, one of whom is on the verge of attaining
majority, do not want to go with their mother – Both appear to be happy in the company
of their father who also appears to be in a position to look after them – Held that any
visitation right to the mother would be adverse to the interest of the children. (Para 15)
Gaytri Bajaj Vs Jiten Bhalla, 2012(4) RCR (Civil) 603 (SC)
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Sections 7, 12 and 25 - Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956, Sections 6 and 13 – Custody of minor child – Fitness of father –
It is not the ‘negative test’ that the father is not ’unfit’ or disqualified to have custody of
his son/ daughter is relevant but the ‘positive test’ that such custody could be in the
welfare of the minor which is material – On that basis the Court could exercise the power
to grant or refuse custody of minor in favour of father, mother or any other guardian.
(Para 62) Nil Ratan Kundu and anr Vs Abhijit Kundu, 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 936
(SC)
-16-
Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6(b) – Guardianship Petition – Duty of the Court –
Parens patriae jurisdiction – Upon a guardianship petition being laid before the Court,
the concerned child ceases to be in the exclusive custody of the parents; thereafter, until
attainment of majority, the child continues in curial curatorship. (Para 20) ABC (Karuna
Purti) Vs State (NCT of Delhi), 2015(3) RCR (Civil) 766 (SC)
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 9 – Jurisdiction – Solitary test – ‘Ordinary
Residence’ of the minor – Whether the minor is ordinarily residing at a given place is
primarily a question of intention which in turn is a question of fact – It may at best be
mixed question of law and fact, but unless jurisdictional facts are admitted it can never be
a pure question of law, capable of being answered without an enquiry into the factual
aspects of the controversy. (Para 14) Ruchi Majoo Vs Sanjeev Majoo, AIR 2011 SC
1952
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 9 – Jurisdiction – Whether the High Court was
justified in dismissing the petition for custody of the minor on the ground that the Court
at Delhi had no jurisdiction to entertain the same – Held No – High Court was not right in
holding that the respondent’s version regarding the letter in question having been
obtained under threat and coercion was unacceptable – If the letter was under duress and
coercion, there was no reason why the respondent should not have repudiated the same
no sooner he landed in America and the alleged duress and coercion had ceased – Far
from doing so the respondent continued to support that decision even when he was far
away from any duress and coercion alleged by him till the time he suddenly changed his
mind and started accusing the appellant of abduction. (Para 30) Ruchi Majoo Vs
Sanjeev Majoo, AIR 2011 SC 1952
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 9 – Jurisdiction – Decree of foreign Court –
AIR 2011 SC 1952
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 9 – Jurisdiction – Principle of Comity of Courts
– Held that in the light of the circumstances of this case, repatriation of the minor to the
USA, principle of ‘comity of Courts’ does not appear to be an acceptable option worthy
of being exercised at the stage – Interest of the minor shall be better served if he
continued in the custody of his mother, especially when the respondent has contracted the
second marriage and do not appear to be keen for having actual custody of the minor.
(Para 45). Ruchi Majoo Vs Sanjeev Majoo, AIR 2011 SC 1952
Custody of minor child – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 25 – Hindu Minority
and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 –Merely because there is no defect in his personal
care and his attachment for his children - which every parent normally has, father would
-17-
not be granted custody. (Para 40) Gaurav Nagpal Vs Sumedha Nagpal, 2008(4) RCR
(Civil) 928
and 26 – Custody of minor child – The word ‘welfare’ used in Section 13 of the Act has
to be construed liberally 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 stands in the way of
the Court exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction arising in such cases. (Para 43)
1956, Section 6 – Custody of minor child – Merely because there is no defect in his
personal care and his attachment for his children - which every parent normally has,
father would not be granted custody. (Para 40) Gaurav Nagpal Vs Sumedha Nagpal,
2008(4) RCR (Civil) 928
1956, Section 6 – Custody of minor child – The Grandmother of the minor, who was
given the custody of the child by virtue of compromise has since expired - Paternal uncle
and paternal aunt have their separate family units to be taken care of by them – Nothing
on record to indicate that the mother had any interest adverse to that of the minor in the
Guardianship Petition
Guardianship Petition – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Sections 7, 15 and 19 – Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6(b) – Duty of the Court – Parens patriae
jurisdiction – Upon a guardianship petition being laid before the Court, the concerned
child ceases to be in the exclusive custody of the parents; thereafter, until attainment of
majority, the child continues in curial curatorship. (Para 20) ABC (Karuna Purti) Vs
State (NCT of Delhi), 2015(3) RCR (Civil) 766 (SC)
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section
125 – Maintenance – Estoppel – Contention that the appellant was not informed about the
respondent’s earlier marriage when she married, repelled – Principle of estoppels can not
be present to the service to defeat the provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Para 16)
125 – Scope – No inconsistency of Section 125 CrPC and the provisions of Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Scope of the two laws is different. (Para 9)
-18-
125 –Maintenance – Once the right under the provisions in Section 125 Cr.P.C. is
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Interpretation of
statutes – All the Acts are to be read in conjunction with one another and interpreted
accordingly – Definition of a particular word could be lifted from any of the four Acts
constituting the law to interpret a certain provision, unless there is anything repugnant to
the context. (Para 10) Padmja Sharma Vs Ratan Lal Sharma, 2000(2) RCR (Civil) 590
(SC)
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 16 – Adoption – Presumption of

validity – Adoption deed signed by the natural father and mother of the child and by the
adopting father – It was approved by examining the scribe, the witnesses and the parents
giving in adoption and was duly registered – Mere fact that it does not bear the
endorsement of the natural father at the time of registration, does not raise any suspicion
as to its execution or as to its legality (Para 14) Karam Singh & Ors Vs Jagsir Singh &
Ors., 2015 (3) RCR (Civil) 45 (P&H)
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 16 – Adoption – Presumption of

validity – An adoption deed comes into effect the moment it is signed or thumb marked
by the natural parent and the adopting parent – The only consequence of non registration
or a defective registration is that the presumption of truth, raised under Section 16 of the
Act shall not arise – Adoption deed shall have to be proved like any other ordinary fact or
document. Karam Singh & Ors Vs Jagsir Singh & Ors., 2015 (3) RCR (Civil) 45
(P&H)
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 Sections 18 and 20 – Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, Section 26 –Maintenance for children – Both the parents are employed – if the
approximate salary of the husband is twice as much as that of the wife, they are bound to
contribute for maintenance of their child in that proportion. (Para 11) Padmja Sharma
Vs Ratan Lal Sharma, 2000(2) RCR (Civil) 590 (SC)
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Interpretation of
(SC)
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 5, 11 and 12 – Decree of nullity – Using of the
words that the marriage was annulled by a decree of nullity ipso facto does not mean that
the marriage was annulled under Section 12 of the Act – Wrong mentioning of this
-19-
Section in the petition and the impugned order will not make any difference. (Para 4)
Vinod Versus Smt. Reetu, 2012(1) Law Herald 901
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 5(i), 11 and 12 – Nullity of marriage – A marriage
which was null and void from the very inception could not be held valid even if the
complaining spouse knew about the previous marriage of the other spouse. (Para 19)
Manpreet Kaur Versus Balkar Singh, 2015(5) RCR (Civil) 510 (P&H)
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 5(i), 11 and 12 – Nullity of marriage – When the
appellant was married to the respondent, her first marriage was in subsistence and she
had a living spouse – Marriage between the parties in violation of Section 5 (i) of the Act
– Rightly declared null and void by the Trial Court. (Paras 21 and 22) Manpreet Kaur
Versus Balkar Singh, 2015(5) RCR (Civil) 510 (P&H)
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 5, 11 and 12 – Void marriage – Wife sought
declaration to the effect that the marriage between her and appellant (husband) be
declared void by decree of nullity on the ground of being in contravention of clause (i) of
Section 5 of the Act – Held that such marriage can be declared void at any time – Merely
because while filing the petition the wife had mentioned that the petition was filed under
Section 12 or the learned Additional District Judge has ordered that the marriages
annulled under Section 12 will not mean that the marriage was declared void by decree of
nullity under Section 12. (Para 4) Vinod Versus Smt. Reetu, 2012(1) Law Herald 901.
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 5 and 11 – Void marriage – Custom – To be

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 7, 11 and 13 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order
22, Rules 3 and 4 – Divorce Proceedings – Wife challenged decree of nullity declaring
the marriage as void – Wife died during the pendency of appeal – Applicant is the only
child from the marriage in question – She wants to pursue the appeal – The legal right of
the applicant to inherit the ancestral property of her parents will be affected – Her social
status will also be at stake – Her matrimonial prospects may also be affected – Applicant
being the affected party from the impugned decree is entitled to pursue the appeal filed
by her mother. (Para 6) Balwinder Kaur Versus Gurmukh Singh, 2007(3) RCR
(Civil) 433 P&H
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 7, 11, and 13 – Nullity of marriage – Factum of
performance of essential ceremonies at the time of previous marriage not even pleaded
by the respondent – The witness who proved marriage certificate, has not stated anything
about performance of the marriage ceremonies at the time of the alleged previous
marriage – Held that respondent has failed to prove that prior to the marriage in question,
the appellant had performed valid marriage with another party and the said marriage was
subsisting at the time of marriage in question – Decree of nullity passed by the Trial
Court liable to be set aside. (Paras 11 and 13) Balwinder Kaur Versus Gurmukh
Singh, 2007(3) RCR (Civil) 433 P&H
-20-
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 9 and 24 – Maintenance – Grant of decree for
restitution of conjugal rights in favour of a husband – Cannot create a legal bar to claim
maintenance by a destitute wife. (Para 17) Sanjay Kumar Vs Bhateri, (2013) 3 RCR
(Civil) 223 (P&H)
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 11 – Nullity of marriage – Appellant wife earlier
married to someone else – Said marriage not shown to have been dissolved – Even if it is
assumed that her second husband was already married and, therefore, she was not
required to obtain divorce, she was ineligible to marry the respondent-husband –
Respondent-husband having married appellant wife without any misrepresentation or
fraud by her, filed a petition for annulling the marriage – It would amount to taking
advantage of his own wrong. (Paras 4 and 5) Sunita Versus Jugal Kishore, 2004(4)
RCR (Civil) 784 (P&H)
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 11 and 13 (1)(vii) - Evidence Act 1872, Section 108 –
Divorce – Person not heard alive for seven years – Just because a spouse was not heard of
for seven long years, the other spouse cannot contract second marriage – A party taking
such plea should first establish such a plea – It was established that the first husband was
very much alive when the wife contracted second marriage – Such a marriage is taken
illegal, null and void. (Paras 12 and 14) Swaranjit Kaur Versus Lt. Col. Avtar Singh
& Ors, 2016(5) RCR(Civil) 163 P&H
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 11, 13 and 25 – Interim maintenance – Cannot be
declined at the interim stage by coming to the conclusion that marriage between the
parties is a nullity – That is the final relief claimed by respondent in the petition – Even
when the petition is decided finally, the Court can still grant permanent alimony. (Para 6)
Smt. Lata Versus Neeraj Pawar, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 872 P&H
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 11 – Nullity of marriage – No evidence was led to
establish that there was any custom or usage prevalent in the community of the appellant
under which divorce through writing by Panchayatnama was permissible – Matrimonial
Court held that on the date of marriage, the appellant had not obtained divorce from her
previous husband from any competent Court having jurisdiction – Decree declaring the
second marriage null and void upheld. (Paras 10, 11 and 18) Rajinder Kaur Versus
Kuldeep Singh, 2010 (1) RCR (Civil) 818 P&H.
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 11 and 23(1)(a) – Nullity of marriage – Remedy
under Section 11 of the Act is available to "any party" and not to the aggrieved party –
Cannot be said that the party who is performing second marriage and seeking declaration
of that marriage to be a nullity, is precluded from filing petition under Section 11 of the
Act – Provisions of Section 23(1)(a) would not debar such spouse from presenting a
petition under Section 11 of the Act seeking declaration that the second marriage is a
nullity and void. (Para 9) Kiran Kaur Versus Jagir Singh Bamrah, 2015(2) PLR 380
P&H
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 11 and 29 – Nullity of marriage – Customary

Divorce – Held that it stands established on the record that there is a custom amongst Jat
Sikhs of District Sangrur, permitting dissolution of marriage or divorce through writing
-21-
executed by the parties in this regard – As such the divorce would be recognized in view
of Section 29(2) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the law laid down by Hon’ble
(Civil) 503 P&H
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13 – Constitution of India, Article 136 – Divorce –
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13 – Cruelty - Wife having married during the
subsistence of her first marriage has caused cruelty to the first husband – Husband
entitled to decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Act (Para 20) Swaranjit Kaur
Versus Lt. Col. Avtar Singh & Ors, 2016(5) RCR(Civil) 163 P&H
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13 – Divorce - Mental Cruelty – Willful or intentional
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13 – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956,
Section 6 –Decree of Foreign Court – Conflict of laws – This theory prefers the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 13, 25 and 27 – Permanent Alimony – Husband
getting salary of `7500/- per month – Grant of maintenance amount of ` 2500/- per
month is reasonable and adequate – Wife already received a sum of ` 40,000/- as full and
final settlement – Therefore, not entitled to anything under Section 27 of the Act – In the
absence of any evidence to suggest regarding increase in salary, amount of permanent
alimony cannot be enhanced. (Paras 12 and 13) Smt Raj Bala Vs Krishan Avtar
Kaushik, 2012(8) RCR (Civil) 51 (P&H)
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1)(a) – Cruelty – Word ‘Cruelty’ has been used in
relation to human conduct or human behavior – It is a conduct in relation to or in respect
of matrimonial duties and obligations adversely affecting the other – Cruelty may be
mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. (Para 29). Vinita Saxena Vs Pankaj
Pandit, 2006(2) RCR(Civil) 302 (SC)
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1)(a) – Divorce – Cruelty – Wife leveling false
-22-
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1)(a) – Mental disorder – Trial Court directing
setting up of Medical Board to examine the husband – Husband refused to submit himself
for examination and to go before the Medical Board – Held that this would but confirm
the contention of the wife that the husband is suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia and
the Court can draw adverse inference in the conduct of the husband (Para 44) Vinita
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 13B and 26 – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890,
Sections 7 and 17 – Custody of child – Principles of law as laid down in ‘Rosy Jacob Vs.
Jacob Achakramakka’, (1973) 1 SCC 840 are equally applicable in dealing with the
custody of a child under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act. (Para 19) Vikram Vir
Section 7 –Custody of child – Parties already obtained divorce on mutual consent – Issue
of custody of minor child – Respondent mother getting better job opportunity in Australia
– She cannot be asked to choose between her child and her career – Separating the child
Section 25 – Custody of minor child – The word ‘welfare’ used in Section 13 of the Act
has to be construed liberally 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 stands in the
way of the Court exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction arising in such cases. (Para 43)
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 13B and 26 - Guardians and Wards Act, 1890,
Section 7 –– Custody of children – Parties already obtained divorce on mutual consent –
Issue as to whether the custody of child should be given to father or the mother or
partially to one and partially to other – Factors to be considered (a) Wishes of the child
concerned, and (b) to assess the psychological impact, if any, on the change in custody
after obtaining the opinion of a child’s Psychiatrist or a child welfare worker. (Para 4)
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 –
Maintenance – Upon request made by wife of appellant, Director General of Police
(P&H)
-23-
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 25 – Alimony/ Maintenance – Expression ‘at the
time of passing any decree’ – Encompasses all kinds of decrees such as restitution of
conjugal rights under Section 9, judicial separation under Section 10, declaring marriage
as null and void under Section 11, annulment of marriage as voidable under Section 12
and divorce under Section 13. (Para 18) Rajinder Kaur Versus Kuldeep Singh, 2010
(1) RCR (Civil) 818 P&H.
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 26 – Custody of minor children – Minors are in the
care and custody of the mother – Receiving maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. from
the father – Both the children are school going – Very difficult to dislocate them from the
place like Chandigarh, where the education facilities are comparatively better than
Faridabad, and send them to the place of the father, where none is there to look after them
at his back – Moreover, due to long separation from their father, the children have lost
interest in him – Orders granting custody of the children to her mother upheld. (Paras 5 to
7) Rajan Jairath Vs Mrs.Monita Mehta, 2013 (1) RCR (Civil) 546 (P&H)
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 26 – Enhancement of maintenance – Change in

circumstances – Party can approach the Family Court again as an order under Section 26
of the Act is never final – Decree passed thereunder is always subject to modification.
Section 6 - Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 25 – Custody of minor child –
Section 6 - Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 25 – Custody of minor child –
Section 6 - Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 25 – Family Courts Act, 1984,
-24-
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 26 – Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
Sections 18 and 20 – Maintenance for children – Both the parents are employed – if the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 27 – Disposal of property – The direction for disposal
by Matrimonial Court – Can be only in relation to the property which may belong jointly
to both the husband and wife – Exclusive property to one of the spouses cannot be a
subject of direction under Section 27 of the Act. (Para 3) Anita Vs Rakesh, 2010(5)
Law Herald 3579
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 27 – Disposal of property – Interim relief – Family
Court directed Court Receiver to take possession of the flat from husband and induct wife
in the flat during the pendency of the appeal – Held that the family Court, by way of
interim relief, has granted main relief itself – Not sustainable – Order set aside. (Paras 3
to 6) Mehul Mahendra Thakkar Vs Meena Mehul Thakkar, 2009 (14) SCC 48
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Interpretation of
(SC)
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Sections 5, 6 and 8 – Custody of Minor
child – Visitation Rights – The children, one of whom is on the verge of attaining
majority, do not want to go with their mother – Both appear to be happy in the company
of their father who also appears to be in a position to look after them – Held that any
visitation right to the mother would be adverse to the interest of the children. (Para 15)
Gaytri Bajaj Vs Jiten Bhalla, 2012(4) RCR (Civil) 603 (SC)
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Sections 5, 6 and 8 – Guardians and Wards
Act, 1890, Section 7 – Custody of Minor child – Held that it is the desire, interest,
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908,
Section 13 - Custody of children – Both the parents and children citizens of U.K. – The
-25-
Section 13 - Custody of Child – Principle of Comity of Courts – Is essentially a principle
of self restraint applicable when a foreign Court is seized of the issue of the custody of a
& Ors, AIR 2015 SC 2243
Section 13 - Custody of Child – Principle of Comity of Courts – Not appropriate that a
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 – Custody of minor child –
Earlier, husband, was directed to provide the initial expenses of wife and minor child for
travelling to and studying in UK for atleast a month to attend and contest the proceedings
initiated by the husband before the Court in UK – Further directions issued to the
husband regarding bearing of various expenses. (Para 9) Mrs.Shilpa Aggarwal Vs
Mr.Aviral Mittal & anr, 2010(3) RCR (Civil) 433 (SC)
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Sections 6 and 12 – Custody of Minor child
– Held that appellant father (Member of Indian Administrative Service) with the help of
his father (Professor) will be able to take very good care of the children – Mother is not in
a position to look after the educational need of the elder son – It would be in the interest
of the children that they stay with the father – Visitation rights given to mother. (Paras 16
to 18) Shaleen Kabra Vs Shiwani Kabra, 2012 (2) RCR (Civil) 974 (SC)
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Sections 6 and 13 – Guardians and Wards
Act, 1890, Sections 7, 12 and 25 – Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 498A - Custody of
minor child – Complaint against father alleging and attributing death of mother and a
-26-
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Sections 6 and 13 – Guardians and Wards
Act, 1890, Sections 7, 12 and 25 – Custody of minor child – Fitness of father – It is not
the ‘negative test’ that the father is not ’unfit’ or disqualified to have custody of his son/
daughter is relevant but the ‘positive test’ that such custody could be in the welfare of the
minor which is material – On that basis the Court could exercise the power to grant or
refuse custody of minor in favour of father, mother or any other guardian. (Para 62) Nil
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 - Guardians and Wards Act,
1890, Sections 7 and 25 – Custody of minor girl – After having obtained the custody of
the minor child, the father does not appear to have neglected the minor or to look after
all her needs – The child appears to be happy in his company and is also doing
consistently well in school – Father appears to be financially stable and is also not
disqualified in any way from being the guardian of the minor child – The child also
expressed her preference to be with the father with whom she feels more comfortable –
Interest of the minor child will be best served, if she remains with the father. (Paras 27 to
29) Sheila B.Das Vs P.R.Sugasree, 2006 (1) RCR (Civil) 758 (SC)
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 – Guardians and Wards Act,
1890, Section 7 – Custody of child – High Court directing handing over the custody of
the child to the Institution, where the child is admitted for education - Held that handing
over of custody to any Institution, while ignoring the claim of a parent, especially the
mother of the child, is not acceptable. (Para 3) Beata Agnieszka Sobieraj versus State
of Himachal Pradesh, 2016(4) RCR (Civil) 4
1890, Section 25 – Custody of child – Paramount consideration – Welfare of the child
and not rights of the parents. (Para 35) Gaurav Nagpal Vs Sumedha Nagpal, 2008(4)
RCR (Civil) 928
1890, Section 25 – Custody of minor child – The Grandmother of the minor, who was
given the custody of the child by virtue of compromise has since expired - Paternal uncle
and paternal aunt have their separate family units to be taken care of by them – Nothing
on record to indicate that the mother had any interest adverse to that of the minor in the
1890, Section 25 –Custody of minor child – Merely because there is no defect in his
personal care and his attachment for his children - which every parent normally has,
father would not be granted custody. (Para 40) Gaurav Nagpal Vs Sumedha Nagpal,
2008(4) RCR (Civil) 928
-27-
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 – Custody of minor child – Order
of High Court runs counter to the provisions contained in Section 6 as it incorrectly shifts
the burden on the mother to show her suitability for temporary custody of the minor child
– Order set aside. (Para 18) Roann Sharma Vs Arun Sharma, AIR 2015 SC 2232
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
Section 26 –Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 25 – Custody of minor child –
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
Section 13 – Decree of Foreign Court – Conflict of laws – This theory prefers the
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
Section 26 –Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 25 – Family Courts Act, 1984,
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6(b) – Guardians and Wards Act,
1890, Sections 7, 15 and 19 – Issuance of birth certificate – If a single parent / unwed
Must thereupon issue the birth certificate, unless there is a Court direction to the contrary
– It is the responsibility of the State to ensure that no citizen suffers any inconvenience or
disadvantage, merely because the parents failed or neglect to register the birth. (Para 19)
ABC (Karuna Purti) Vs State (NCT of Delhi), 2015(3) RCR (Civil) 766 (SC)
1890, Sections 7, 15 and 19 – Guardianship Petition – Duty of the Court – Parens patriae
jurisdiction – Upon a guardianship petition being laid before the Court, the concerned
child ceases to be in the exclusive custody of the parents; thereafter, until attainment of
-28-
majority, the child continues in curial curatorship. (Para 20) ABC (Karuna Purti) Vs
State (NCT of Delhi), 2015(3) RCR (Civil) 766 (SC)
1890, Sections 7, 15 and 19 – Whether it is imperative for an unwed mother to
specifically notify the putative father of the child, whom she has given birth to of her
petition for appointment as guardian of a child? – Held No - If a single parent / unwed
Must thereupon issue the birth certificate, unless there is a Court direction to the contrary.
(Paras 1 and 19) ABC (Karuna Purti) Vs State (NCT of Delhi), 2015(3) RCR (Civil)
766 (SC)
Visitation rights – Distinct from custody or interim custody orders – Essentially they
enable the parent who does not have interim custody to be able to meet the child without
removing him/ her from the custody of other parent – If a child is allowed to spend
several hours, or even days away from the parent, who has been granted custody by the
Court, temporary custody of the child stands temporarily transferred. (Para 18) Roann
Sharma Vs Arun Sharma, AIR 2015 SC 2232
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 8 – Powers of Natural Guardian –
Death of father – Property shared amongst each member of the family – Recorded in
Mutation Register having 1/4th share each – Provisions of sub Section (3) of Section 8
shall attract as the mother sold the property without previous permission of the Court –
Both the sale deeds shall become voidable at the instance of the minor. (Para 13) Saroj
Vs Sunder Singh and others, 2014(1) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 08
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Sections 8(1) and 11 – Limitation Act,
1963, Article 60 – Alienation of property by Guardian – Suit by quondam minor to set
aside such alienation – Is governed by Article 60 - Articles 109, 110 or 113 of the
Limitation Act are not applicable – To impeach the transfer of immovable property by the
guardian, the minor must file suit within the prescribed limit of 3 years after attaining
majority. (Para 27) Narayan vs Baba sahib and ors, AIR 2016 SC 1666
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Sections 8(1) and 11 – Limitation Act,
1963, Section 7, Article 60 – Disability of one of several persons - First plaintiff was 20
years old – Second defendant was still a minor – Plaintiffs 3, 4 and 5 (married daughters)
were aged 29, 27, 25 respectively, on the date of institution of suit – Plaintiffs 3 and 5
though majors as on the date of institution of suit will not fall under Explanation 2 of
Section 7 of the Limitation Act as they are not the Manager or Karta of the joint family –
The first plaintiff was 20 years old as on the date of institution of the suit – No evidence
forthcoming to arrive at a different conclusion with regard to age of the first plaintiff –
Suit is instituted well within three years of limitation from the date of attaining majority
as envisaged under Article 60 of the Act. (Para 32) Narayan vs Baba sahib and ors,
AIR 2016 SC 1666
-29-
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 13 – Welfare of child – Better
financial resources of either of the parents or their love for the child may be one of the
relevant considerations but cannot be the sole determining factor for the custody of the
child. (Para 14) Mausami Moitra Ganguli Vs Jayant Ganguli, 2008 (4) RCR (Civil)
551 (SC)
Nothing on record to suggest that the welfare of the child is in any way in peril in the
hands of the father – Minor has been living and studying in Allahabad in a good school –
Dislocation of minor, at this stage, from Allahabad would not only impede his schooling,
it may also cause emotional strain and depression on him – Interest and welfare will be
best served if he continues to be in the custody of the father. (Para 17) Mausami Moitra
Ganguli Vs Jayant Ganguli, 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 551 (SC)
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 13 – Custody of child – Child
removed by a parent from one country to another in contravention of the orders of the
Court where the parties had set up their matrimonial home – The Court in the country to
which the child has been removed must first consider the question whether the Court
could conduct an elaborate enquiry on the question of custody or by dealing with the
matter summarily order a parent to return custody of the child to the country from which
the child was removed. (Para 20). Dr. V.Ravi Chandran Vs Union of India & others,
2010 (1) SCC 174
Paramount Consideration – Welfare and custody of the child and not rights of the parents
under a statute – Each case has to be decided on its own facts and other decided cases can
hardly serve as binding precedents in so far as the factual aspects of the case are
concerned (Para 14). Mausami Moitra Ganguli Vs Jayant Ganguli, 2008 (4) RCR
(Civil) 551(SC)
Minor an American citizen – Spent his initial years there – Parties obtained series of
consent orders concerning his custody/ parenting rights, maintenance etc. from competent
Court of jurisdiction in America – Merely because the child has been brought to India,
the custody issue concerning him does not deserve to be gone into by the Court in India –
It would be in accord with the principles of comity as well as on facts to return the child
back to USA and enable the parties to establish the case before the Courts in USA. (Para
21) Dr. V.Ravi Chandran Vs Union of India & others, 2010 (1) SCC 174
Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956 - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 Interpretation of
(SC)
-30-
Interim maintenance
Interim maintenance – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 11, 13 and 25 – Interim
maintenance cannot be declined at the interim stage by coming to the conclusion that
marriage between the parties is a nullity – That is the final relief claimed by respondent
in the petition – Even when the petition is decided finally, the Court can still grant
permanent alimony. (Para 6) Smt. Lata Versus Neeraj Pawar, 2009(1) RCR (Civil)
872 P&H
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 498A - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956,
Sections 6 and 13 – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Sections 7, 12 and 25 – Custody of
minor child – Complaint against father alleging and attributing death of mother and a
Interpretation of statute
Interpretation of statutes – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Hindu Minority and Guardianship
Act, 1956 - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Hindu Succession Act, 1956 –
All the Acts are to be read in conjunction with one another and interpreted accordingly –
Definition of a particular word could be lifted from any of the four Acts constituting the
law to interpret a certain provision, unless there is anything repugnant to the context.
Interpretation of statute – Main principle – Inconvenience and hardship to a person will

not be decisive factor while interpreting the provision – When the provision makes it very
clear and unequivocally gives a meaning, it was to be interpreted in the same sense as the
maxim says ‘dulo lex sed lex’, which means the law is hard but it is a law and there
cannot be any departure from the words of the law. (Para 30) Narayan vs Baba sahib
and ors, AIR 2016 SC 1666
Issuance of birth certificate
Issuance of birth certificate – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Sections 7, 15 and 19 –
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6(b) – If a single parent / unwed
Must thereupon issue the birth certificate, unless there is a Court direction to the contrary
– It is the responsibility of the State to ensure that no citizen suffers any inconvenience or
disadvantage, merely because the parents failed or neglect to register the birth. (Para 19)
ABC (Karuna Purti) Vs State (NCT of Delhi), 2015(3) RCR (Civil) 766 (SC)
Jurisdiction
-31-
Jurisdiction - Family Courts Act, 1984, Sections 7 and 8 - In case, there is a dispute on
the matrimonial status of any person, a declaration in that regard has to be sought only
before the Family Court – It makes no difference as to whether it is an affirmative relief
or a negative relief – What is important is the declaration regarding the matrimonial
status. (Para 7) Balram Yadav vs Fulmaniya Yadav, AIR 2016 SC 2161
Jurisdiction – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 9 –Decree of foreign Court –
AIR 2011 SC 1952
Jurisdiction – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 9 – Principle of Comity of Courts
Jurisdiction – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 9 - Solitary test – ‘Ordinary
Residence’ of the minor – Whether the minor is ordinarily residing at a given place is
primarily a question of intention which in turn is a question of fact – It may at best be
mixed question of law and fact, but unless jurisdictional facts are admitted it can never be
a pure question of law, capable of being answered without an enquiry into the factual
aspects of the controversy. (Para 14) Ruchi Majoo Vs Sanjeev Majoo, AIR 2011 SC
1952
Jurisdiction – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 9 – Whether the High Court was
justified in dismissing the petition for custody of the minor on the ground that the Court
at Delhi had no jurisdiction to entertain the same – Held No – High Court was not right in
holding that the respondent’s version regarding the letter in question having been
obtained under threat and coercion was unacceptable – If the letter was under duress and
coercion, there was no reason why the respondent should not have repudiated the same
no sooner he landed in America and the alleged duress and coercion had ceased – Far
from doing so the respondent continued to support that decision even when he was far
away from any duress and coercion alleged by him till the time he suddenly changed his
mind and started accusing the appellant of abduction. (Para 30) Ruchi Majoo Vs
Sanjeev Majoo, AIR 2011 SC 1952
Limitation Act, 1963
Limitation Act, 1963, Article 60 – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Sections
8(1) and 11 – Alienation of property by Guardian – Suit by quondam minor to set aside
such alienation – Is governed by Article 60 - Articles 109, 110 or 113 of the Limitation
Act are not applicable – To impeach the transfer of immovable property by the guardian,
the minor must file suit within the prescribed limit of 3 years after attaining majority.
(Para 27) Narayan vs Baba sahib and ors, AIR 2016 SC 1666
-32-
Limitation Act, 1963, Article 60 - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Sections
8(1) and 11 – Alienation of property by Guardian – Suit by quondam minor to set aside
such alienation – Is governed by Article 60 - Articles 109, 110 or 113 of the Limitation
Act are not applicable – To impeach the transfer of immovable property by the guardian,
the minor must file suit within the prescribed limit of 3 years after attaining majority.
(Para 27) Narayan vs Baba sahib and ors, AIR 2016 SC 1666
Limitation Act, 1963, Section 7, Article 60 - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,
1956, Sections 8(1) and 11– Disability of one of several persons - First plaintiff was 20
years old – Second defendant was still a minor – Plaintiffs 3, 4 and 5 (married daughters)
were aged 29, 27, 25 respectively, on the date of institution of suit – Plaintiffs 3 and 5
though majors as on the date of institution of suit will not fall under Explanation 2 of
Section 7 of the Limitation Act as they are not the Manager or Karta of the joint family –
The first plaintiff was 20 years old as on the date of institution of the suit – No evidence
forthcoming to arrive at a different conclusion with regard to age of the first plaintiff –
Suit is instituted well within three years of limitation from the date of attaining majority
as envisaged under Article 60 of the Act. (Para 32) Narayan vs Baba sahib and ors,
AIR 2016 SC 1666
Limitation Act, 1963 – Nature – The Limitation Act neither confers a right nor an
obligation to file a suit, if no such right exists under the substantive law – Only provides
for a period of limitation for filing the suit. (Para 28) Narayan vs Baba sahib and ors,
AIR 2016 SC 1666
Maintenance
Maintenance - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 – Enormous delay in

disposal of the proceeding u/s 125 Cr.P.C. – Most of the time the husband had taken
adjournments and some times the Court dealt with the matter showing total laxity – The
circumstances required grant of maintenance from the date of application. (Para 16)
Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs Meena and others, AIR 2014 SC 2875
Maintenance - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 – For awarding maintenance
from the date of the application, express order is necessary – No special reasons,
however, are required to be recorded by the Court. – Judgment in ‘Shail Kumari Devi
and anr. Vs. Krishan Bhagwal Pathak alias Kishun B. Pathak’ 2008(3) RCR (Crl.) 842,
relied upon. (Para 15) Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs Meena and others, AIR 2014 SC
2875
Maintenance – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 – Expression ‘Wife’ –

Refers to only legally married wife. (Para 7) Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Versus
Maintenance – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 125 and 127 –Enhancement –
Contention that no amendment made to the Claim petition seeking enhancement, repelled
– Section 127 Cr.P.C. permits increase in the quantum – Maintenance amount to the child
enhanced. (Para 22) Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Versus State of Gujarat and Ors.,
2005 (1) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 541
-33-
Maintenance – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 9 and 24 –Grant of decree for
restitution of conjugal rights in favour of a husband – Cannot create a legal bar to claim
maintenance by a destitute wife. (Para 17) Sanjay Kumar Vs Bhateri, (2013) 3 RCR
(Civil) 223 (P&H)
Maintenance – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 – Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956 – Once the right under the provisions in Section 125 Cr.P.C. is
Maintenance – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 – Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956 – Estoppel – Contention that the appellant was not informed
about the respondent’s earlier marriage when she married, repelled – Principle of
estoppels can not be present to the service to defeat the provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C.
(Para 16) Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Versus State of Gujarat and Ors., 2005 (1)
Apex Court Judgments (SC) 541
Maintenance – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 24 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,
Section 125 –Upon request made by wife of appellant, Director General of Police
(P&H)
Maintenance - Quantum - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 – Husband took
voluntary retirement – If 40% of the commutation is taken into account then the pension
of the husband amounts to ` 11,535/- - In addition to his pension, he had received
encashment of commutation to the extent of 40% i.e. ` 3,84,500/- and other retiral dues
to the tune of ` 16,01,455/- - Hence, solely because the husband has retired, there was no
justification to reduce the maintenance amount by 50% - Orders passed by the High
Court set aside – Orders of family Court restored . (Paras 19 and 20) Shamima Farooqui
Vs Shahid Khan, 2015(5) SCC 705
Maintenance for children – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 26 – Hindu Adoptions
and Maintenance Act, 1956 Sections 18 and 20 –Both the parents are employed – if the
Mental Cruelty
Mental Cruelty – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13 – Divorce - Willful or intentional
-34-
Mental Disorder
Mental disorder – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1)(a) – Trial Court directing
setting up of Medical Board to examine the husband – Husband refused to submit himself
for examination and to go before the Medical Board – Held that this would but confirm
the contention of the wife that the husband is suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia and
the Court can draw adverse inference in the conduct of the husband (Para 44) Vinita
Muslim wife
Muslim wife – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 – Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, Sections 3 –Wife had already taken recourse
to Section 3 of the Act after divorce took place and obtained relief which has been upheld
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, Sections 3 – Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 –Muslim wife – Wife had already taken recourse to
Section 3 of the Act after divorce took place and obtained relief which has been upheld
Nullity of marriage
Nullity of marriage – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 5(i), 11 and 12 –When the
appellant was married to the respondent, her first marriage was in subsistence and she
had a living spouse – Marriage between the parties in violation of Section 5 (i) of the Act
– Rightly declared null and void by the Trial Court. (Paras 21 and 22) Manpreet Kaur
Versus Balkar Singh, 2015(5) RCR (Civil) 510 (P&H)
Nullity of marriage – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 5(i), 11 and 12 –A marriage
which was null and void from the very inception could not be held valid even if the
-35-
complaining spouse knew about the previous marriage of the other spouse. (Para 19)
Manpreet Kaur Versus Balkar Singh, 2015(5) RCR (Civil) 510 (P&H)
Nullity of marriage – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 7, 11, and 13 –Factum of
performance of essential ceremonies at the time of previous marriage not even pleaded
by the respondent – The witness who proved marriage certificate, has not stated anything
about performance of the marriage ceremonies at the time of the alleged previous
marriage – Held that respondent has failed to prove that prior to the marriage in question,
the appellant had performed valid marriage with another party and the said marriage was
subsisting at the time of marriage in question – Decree of nullity passed by the Trial
Court liable to be set aside. (Paras 11 and 13) Balwinder Kaur Versus Gurmukh
Singh, 2007(3) RCR (Civil) 433 P&H
Nullity of marriage – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 11 and 29 –Customary

Divorce – Held that it stands established on the record that there is a custom amongst Jat
Sikhs of District Sangrur, permitting dissolution of marriage or divorce through writing
executed by the parties in this regard – As such the divorce would be recognized in view
of Section 29(2) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the law laid down by Hon’ble
(Civil) 503 P&H
Nullity of marriage – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 11 and 23(1)(a) – Remedy
under Section 11 of the Act is available to "any party" and not to the aggrieved party –
Cannot be said that the party who is performing second marriage and seeking declaration
of that marriage to be a nullity, is precluded from filing petition under Section 11 of the
Act – Provisions of Section 23(1)(a) would not debar such spouse from presenting a
petition under Section 11 of the Act seeking declaration that the second marriage is a
nullity and void. (Para 9) Kiran Kaur Versus Jagir Singh Bamrah, 2015(2) PLR 380
P&H
Nullity of marriage – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 11 – Appellant wife earlier
married to someone else – Said marriage not shown to have been dissolved – Even if it is
assumed that her second husband was already married and, therefore, she was not
required to obtain divorce, she was ineligible to marry the respondent-husband –
Respondent-husband having married appellant wife without any misrepresentation or
fraud by her, filed a petition for annulling the marriage – It would amount to taking
advantage of his own wrong. (Paras 4 and 5) Sunita Versus Jugal Kishore, 2004(4)
RCR (Civil) 784 (P&H)
Nullity of marriage – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 11 – No evidence was led to
establish that there was any custom or usage prevalent in the community of the appellant
under which divorce through writing by Panchayatnama was permissible – Matrimonial
Court held that on the date of marriage, the appellant had not obtained divorce from her
previous husband from any competent Court having jurisdiction – Decree declaring the
-36-
second marriage null and void upheld. (Paras 10, 11 and 18) Rajinder Kaur Versus
Kuldeep Singh, 2010 (1) RCR (Civil) 818 P&H.
Permanent Alimony
Permanent Alimony – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 13, 25 and 27 – Husband
getting salary of `7500/- per month – Grant of maintenance amount of ` 2500/- per
month is reasonable and adequate – Wife already received a sum of ` 40,000/- as full and
final settlement – Therefore, not entitled to anything under Section 27 of the Act – In the
absence of any evidence to suggest regarding increase in salary, amount of permanent
alimony cannot be enhanced. (Paras 12 and 13) Smt Raj Bala Vs Krishan Avtar
Kaushik, 2012(8) RCR (Civil) 51 (P&H)
Powers of Natural Guardian
Powers of Natural Guardian – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 8 –
Death of father – Property shared amongst each member of the family – Recorded in
Mutation Register having 1/4th share each – Provisions of sub Section (3) of Section 8
shall attract as the mother sold the property without previous permission of the Court –
Both the sale deeds shall become voidable at the instance of the minor. (Para 13) Saroj
Vs Sunder Singh and others, 2014(1) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 08
Principle of Comity of Courts
Principle of Comity of Courts - Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 13 - Hindu Minority
and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 – Custody of Child - Not appropriate that a
Principle of Comity of Courts - Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 9 – Jurisdiction
Principle of Comity of Courts – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 –
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 13 - Custody of Child –Is essentially a principle of
self restraint applicable when a foreign Court is seized of the issue of the custody of a
-37-
& Ors, AIR 2015 SC 2243
Void marriage
Void marriage – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 5 and 11 – Custom – To be

Void marriage – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 5, 11 and 12 –Wife sought
declaration to the effect that the marriage between her and appellant (husband) be
declared void by decree of nullity on the ground of being in contravention of clause (i) of
Section 5 of the Act – Held that such marriage can be declared void at any time – Merely
because while filing the petition the wife had mentioned that the petition was filed under
Section 12 or the learned Additional District Judge has ordered that the marriages
annulled under Section 12 will not mean that the marriage was declared void by decree of
nullity under Section 12. (Para 4) Vinod Versus Smt. Reetu, 2012(1) Law Herald 901.
Welfare of child
Welfare of child – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 13 –Better
financial resources of either of the parents or their love for the child may be one of the
relevant considerations but cannot be the sole determining factor for the custody of the
child. (Para 14) Mausami Moitra Ganguli Vs Jayant Ganguli, 2008 (4) RCR (Civil)
551 (SC)
*****

Supreme High Court Judgment PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Supreme High Court Judgment PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

JUDGMENTS ON FAMILY COURT MATTERS

Adoption – Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 16 – Presumption of

Adoption – Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 16 –Presumption of

Alienation of property by Guardian

Alienation of property by Guardian - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956,

Alimony/Maintenance – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 25 – Expression ‘at the

Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 – Maintenance – Enormous delay in

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 – Maintenance – Expression ‘Wife’ –

Custom – Plea of - To be pleaded and proved – In the absence thereof, no presumption

Customary Divorce – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 11 and 29 – Nullity of

Decree of Foreign Court

Divorce Proceedings – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 7, 11 and 13 – Civil

Enhancement of maintenance – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 26 – Change in

Evidence Act 1872

Family Courts Act, 1984

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 16 – Adoption – Presumption of

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 16 – Adoption – Presumption of

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 5 and 11 – Void marriage – Custom – To be

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 11 and 29 – Nullity of marriage – Customary

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 26 – Enhancement of maintenance – Change in

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956

Hindu Succession Act, 1956

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Interpretation of statute – Main principle – Inconvenience and hardship to a person will

Issuance of birth certificate

Limitation Act, 1963

Maintenance - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 – Enormous delay in

Maintenance – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 125 – Expression ‘Wife’ –

Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986

Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, Sections 3 – Criminal

Nullity of marriage – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 11 and 29 –Customary

Powers of Natural Guardian

Principle of Comity of Courts

Void marriage – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 5 and 11 – Custom – To be

Anda mungkin juga menyukai