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

KOMAL KRISHAN ARORA & ORS. versus SANDEEP KUMAR & ORS.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's order granting interim custody of the minor son to the father because, on the facts, the welfare and best interests of the child would be served by his custody with the father (natural guardian), the mother had left the child in India without informing the father and failed to disclose the fact to the UK court, the father had sufficient means and a suitably located residence (Noida) offering better facilities, and appropriate interim safeguards and directions (visitation, prohibition on taking the child abroad, and initiation…

Source excerpt

  • Custody
  • Interim custody
  • Visitation
  • Habitual residence
  • Comity of courts
  • Jurisdiction
Read case analysis
Child and family welfare

SHARMILA VELAMUR versus V. SANJAY AND ORS.

The expert evaluations (NIMHANS Comprehensive Assessment Report and the Idaho Evaluation Committee) establish that Aadith functions at the cognitive level of an approximately 8–10-year-old and lacks capacity to make well-informed, independent decisions on complex matters such as long-term residence; the Madras High Court erred in deciding alleged illegal detention based solely on a brief oral interaction. Applying the parens patriae doctrine and considering Aadith's best interests (including his established roots, education, services and sibling relationship in the US), the Court set aside th…

Source excerpt

  • Capacity to make decisions
  • Best interests of the child
  • Parens patriae
  • Credence to expert reports
  • Foreign guardianship orders
Read case analysis
Guardianship

COL. RAMNEESH PAL SINGH versus SUGANDHI AGGARWAL

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order granting shared custody, and upheld the Family Court's award of permanent custody to the father because the children's clear and consistent preference to reside with him (they were old enough to express an intelligent choice) combined with the absence of any identified instances of alienating behaviour and the adequacy of support available to Armed Forces families meant that custody with the father was in the minors' welfare; visitation rights of the mother as per the Family Court order were to continue.

Source excerpt

  • Custody of minor children
  • Visitation rights
  • Shared custody
  • Parental alienation syndrome (pas)
  • Guardian and wards act ss.7,9,17,25
  • Protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005
Read case analysis
Transfer of property

ELUMALAI @ VENKATESAN & ANR versus M. KAMALA AND ORS. & ETC.

Although a release deed executed by a person who only had a spes successionis could not by itself effect a transfer (s.6(a) TPA), the father’s execution of the release deed coupled with receipt of valuable consideration and conduct that led the owner to treat the branch as renounced created an equitable estoppel which barred both the father (had he survived) and his children from asserting succession rights; Section 8 HMGA’s prohibition on binding minors by personal covenant did not avail the appellants because they had no independent right at the time and their claim flowed through the estop…

Source excerpt

  • Spes successionis
  • Release deed
  • Estoppel
  • Section 6(a) transfer of property act, 1882
  • Section 8 hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956
  • Class i heirs under hindu succession act, 1956
Read case analysis
Family law

MRS. AKELLA LALITHA versus SRI KONDA HANUMANTHA RAO & ANR.

The mother, being the only natural guardian after the death of the father, has the right to decide the surname of the child and to give the child in adoption; the High Court erred in directing change of the child’s surname when no specific prayer for such relief was made by the respondents, and such directions are set aside; the court may intervene on surname/adoption only when a specific prayer is made and the child's interest is the primary consideration.

Source excerpt

  • Surname of child
  • Right of mother as natural guardian
  • Adoption deed
  • Change of surname
  • Pleadings and reliefs
Read case analysis
Child welfare

G H DSG versus AKG

The Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court order granting custody to the father and specified visitation rights to the mother because three counsellors' reports and the Court's own interaction with the child showed the child (over 12 years) was articulate and unequivocal in her desire to reside with her father, she denied the allegations of sexual abuse by the father, and the mother's observed symptoms of Paranoid Schizophrenia required assessment and treatment such that keeping custody with the father was in the child's welfare; therefore the interim custody orders were to be upheld.

Source excerpt

  • Custody of minor
  • Visitation rights
  • Parens patriae jurisdiction
  • Child's preference in custody
  • Mental illness of parent
  • Counsellor reports
Read case analysis
Family law

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, custody should be with the mother and the English forum was appropriate for determination of custody.

Source excerpt

  • Child custody
  • Jurisdiction
  • Welfare of the child
  • Natural guardian (section 6 hindu minority and guardianship act, 1956)
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

SAHIBZADA SAIYED MUHAMMED AMIRABBAS ABBASI & OTHERS versus THE STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT & OTHERS

Relief under Article 32 cannot be granted when the right claimed has been adjudicated and negatived by a court of competent jurisdiction; personal law rights to guardianship are not fundamental rights enforceable under Article 32; claims regarding property or custody should be pursued through appropriate civil proceedings, not constitutional remedies.

Source excerpt

  • Guardianship rights
  • Enforcement of fundamental rights
  • Personal law
  • Article 32 jurisdiction
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

RANI DRIG RAJ KUER versus RAJA SRI AMAR KRISHNA NARAIN SINGH

By majority, section 56 of the U.P. Court of Wards Act is directory, and failure to appoint separate representatives for the wards does not render the compromise decrees a nullity; the compromise was valid and binding on the parties.

Source excerpt

  • Compromise decree
  • Court of wards
  • Appointment of representatives
  • Statutory interpretation
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.