Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Family law

ARATHY RAMACHANDRAN versus BIJAY RAJ MENON

The High Court's order granting alternate 15 days' interim custody to the father was unsustainable as it was not conducive to the welfare of the children; the interim custody of the three-year-old son to the father was set aside, and a modified access regime was directed whereby the father is entitled to interim custody of the daughter on alternate Saturdays and Sundays and on either of those days may have the son for four hours supervised by a child counsellor, with additional requirements for the father to endeavour to provide home cooked meals and permitted timed video calls.

Source excerpt

  • Guardians and wards act, 1890
  • Interim custody
  • Visitation rights
  • Welfare of child
  • Parental access and bonding
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

RAJESWARI CHANDRASEKAR GANESH versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

The Court held that the paramount consideration is the welfare of the children; having regard to the facts (both children residents of and educated in the USA, one a US citizen and the other a US permanent resident, the mother's stable situation in the USA and the circumstances of removal), the petitioner established a prima facie case that custody with the father was contrary to the children's welfare and that repatriation to the USA would be in their best interests; accordingly the writ petition was allowed and the father was directed to take steps to return the children to the USA and comp…

Source excerpt

  • Welfare of the child
  • Parens patriae
  • Parental alienation syndrome
  • Comity of courts and foreign orders
  • Repatriation of children
  • Guardianship legislation
Read case analysis
Family law

SRI NILANJAN BHATTACHARYA versus THE STATE OF KARANATAKA AND OTHERS

The Supreme Court, exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction, held that the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child and that the High Court's direction allowing repatriation to the US was in the child's interest; however, the specific conditions requiring (a) a District Health Officer certificate that India is free of COVID-19 and (b) a certificate from a US medical authority that the US region is congenial for residence were unenforceable and were set aside, subject to the appellant's undertaking to comply with prevailing Indian and US travel and public health regulations, and w…

Source excerpt

  • Habeas corpus
  • Parens patriae jurisdiction
  • Welfare of the child
  • Foreign custody orders
  • Comity of courts
  • Covid-19 travel restrictions
Read case analysis
Family law

TEJASWINI GAUD AND ORS. versus SHEKHAR JAGDISH PRASAD TEWARI AND OTHERS

Court held that the father, being the only surviving natural guardian and having neither abandoned nor neglected the child, is legally entitled to custody. Welfare of the child, including physical, moral, ethical, intellectual, and economic aspects, is paramount. The child went into appellants' custody due to unavoidable circumstances and they cannot retain custody against statutory guardianship rights. Writ of habeas corpus is maintainable where the detention by non-guardian is unlawful. The High Court correctly prioritized welfare and restored custody to the father, granting appellants visi…

Source excerpt

  • Custody of minor child
  • Habeas corpus in child custody
  • Natural guardian rights
  • Visitation rights
  • Paramount welfare principle
Read case analysis
Family law

MRS. KANIKA GOEL versus STATE OF DELHI THROUGH S.H.O. AND ANR.

Custody of the minor child M to remain with the appellant until she attains majority or unless a court of competent jurisdiction rules otherwise; no compelling reason exists for return of the minor child to US; biological mother's custody is lawful; pending proceedings in New Delhi Family Court should be decided promptly, parties should avoid parallel proceedings in different jurisdictions; respondent No.2 to bear costs for US litigation, travel, and stay if appellant is required to defend in US court.

Source excerpt

  • Custody of minor child
  • Jurisdiction for custody proceedings
  • Best interests of the child
  • Parallel proceedings
  • Habeas corpus
  • Child removal across jurisdictions
Read case analysis
Family law

JITENDER ARORA & ORS. versus SUKRITI ARORA & ORS.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's custody order and held that because the child was a mature 15-year-old who had unequivocally expressed her wish to remain with her father and not to be sent to the UK, her welfare lay in staying with her father; sending her to a foreign country against her wishes would not be in her interest.

Source excerpt

  • Welfare of the child
  • Maturity and child's choice
  • Custody disputes
  • Visitation rights
Read case analysis
Family law

VIVEK SINGH versus ROMANI SINGH

Considering the welfare principle, the child's prior living arrangements, the need for maternal care, psychological concerns of parental alienation, and the mother's professional capacity as an educator, custody is granted to the mother for one year with educational arrangements to be facilitated; level playing field between parents has not yet been achieved, so temporary custody is appropriate.

Source excerpt

  • Guardianship
  • Custody of minor child
  • Welfare of minor
  • Maternal preference
  • Parental alienation syndrome
Read case analysis
Family law

RUCHI MAJOO versus SANJEEV MAJOO

Delhi courts have jurisdiction under s.9 of the Guardian and Wards Act as the minor was ordinarily residing in Delhi with the appellant; foreign court orders do not preclude consideration of welfare by Indian courts. Interim custody with the mother is affirmed; visitation rights for the father must be granted. Quashing of FIR against in-laws is upheld as no offence was made out.

Source excerpt

  • Jurisdiction for child custody
  • Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments
  • Parens patraie jurisdiction
  • Principle of comity of courts
  • Visitation rights
  • Quashing of criminal proceedings
Read case analysis
Family law

GAURAV NAGPAL versus SUMEDHA NAGPAL

Child custody is to be decided solely on the welfare of the minor, not on statutory rights of parents; physical, moral, and ethical welfare have equal importance. Father’s retention of custody by flouting court orders cannot be rewarded; mother’s custody, as decided by courts below, is justified; visitation rights modified; contempt conviction stands, sentence restricted to period already undergone.

Source excerpt

  • Custody of minor child
  • Paramountcy of child welfare
  • Visitation rights
  • Guardianship
  • Contempt for violation of visitation order
Read case analysis
Family law

NIL RATAN KUNDU & ANR. versus ABHIJIT KUNDU

The Supreme Court held that the courts below erred in granting custody to the father without sufficiently considering the welfare of the child, the pendency of criminal proceedings, and the child's wishes. It is not enough that a parent is not disqualified; positive welfare is required. The child's express wish not to go with the respondent-father was decisive.

Source excerpt

  • Guardianship
  • Welfare of the child
  • Parens patriae
  • Custody of minor
  • Preference of minor
  • Dowry
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.