SMT. SURINDAR KAUR SANDHU versus HARBAX SINGH SANDHU & ANR.

SMT. SURINDAR KAUR SANDHU versus HARBAX SINGH SANDHU & ANR.

Although section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 makes the father the natural guardian, the Court held the welfare of the child is paramount; given that the matrimonial home was in England, the child was born there and is a British citizen, and the father had wrongfully removed the child to India,...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Surinder Kaur Sandhu; Respondent: Harbax Singh Sandhu
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 April 1984
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (appeal by Special Leave) / On Appeal From the Judgment and Order Dated 26 August 1983 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Cr. Writ Petition No. 392 of 1983
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the High Court set aside
Legal Topics
Child Custody, Jurisdiction, Welfare of the Child, Natural Guardian (section 6 Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956)
Family Law Guardianship Conflict of Laws Child Custody Jurisdiction Welfare of the Child Natural Guardian (section 6 Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956)

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Surinder Kaur Sandhu

Appellant

Harbax Singh Sandhu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (appeal by Special Leave) / On Appeal From the Judgment and Order Dated 26 August 1983 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Cr. Writ Petition No. 392 of 1983

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 making the father the natural guardian overrides the paramount consideration of the welfare of the minor
  2. 2 Whether the courts of England had the jurisdiction to decide custody given the matrimonial home and the child's birth and citizenship there
  3. 3 Whether the father wrongfully deprived the English courts of jurisdiction by removing the child to India and whether that act affects which forum should decide custody

Ratio Decidendi

Although section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 makes the father the natural guardian, the Court held the welfare of the child is paramount; given that the matrimonial home was in England, the child was born there and is a British citizen, and the father had wrongfully removed the child to India, custody should be with the mother and the English forum was appropriate for determination of custody.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the High Court set aside

Orders

  • Custody of the child to be handed over to the appellant-mother forthwith
  • Respondents directed to pay Rs. 3,000 to the appellant for costs of the appeal