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
Guardians and wards act, 1890

MOHTASHEM BILLAH MALIK versus SANA AFTAB

The High Court erred in treating welfare of the children in isolation and failing to consider other relevant factors and material orders (respondent’s removal of children without consent and passports, revocation of her custody by the Qatar Court, the Contempt Court’s finding, mediation and Family Court observations indicating the children’s inclination toward the father); therefore the High Court’s order restoring custody to the respondent was set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration.

Source excerpt

  • Custody of minors
  • Guardianship
  • Welfare of children
  • Habeas corpus
  • Contempt
Read case analysis
Family law

SUGIRTHA versus GOWTHAM

While the father is entitled to interim visitation as natural guardian, visitation arrangements must prioritize the child's health and welfare; accordingly the place of visitation ordered by the courts below (Karur) was modified and visits were directed to take place in Madurai under specified conditions.

Source excerpt

  • Visitation rights
  • Custody
  • Guardianship
  • Interim orders
  • Best interest of the child
Read case analysis
Family law

AMAN LOHIA versus KIRAN LOHIA

The Family Court exceeded its jurisdiction and violated mandatory procedural requirements and principles of natural justice by allowing ex parte transposition of parties and appointing the respondent sole guardian without ensuring service, hearing or deciding pending amendment applications; therefore the ex parte orders were set aside and the guardianship petition was remanded for fresh adjudication with due notice and opportunity to both parties and considering child-centric welfare including possibilities of joint/shared parenting.

Source excerpt

  • Guardianship
  • Family court procedure
  • Natural justice
  • Transposition of parties
  • Abandonment of proceedings
  • Child custody and access
Read case analysis
Matrimonial law

MRS RITIKA SHARAN versus MR SUJOY GHOSH

Because the child had been in the care and custody of the mother since 2016, the child expressed a clear desire to reside with the mother in Singapore, there was insufficient material to show custody had passed to the maternal grandparents or that the father could satisfactorily care for the child alone, and the child’s welfare (including educational continuity) would be best served by permitting relocation while protecting the father’s access rights, the Court exercised Article 142 to set aside the High Court order and permit the appellant to take the child to Singapore subject to specified…

Source excerpt

  • Child custody
  • Visitation and access
  • Guardianship
  • Relocation of child
  • Jurisdiction under article 142
  • Domestic violence
Read case analysis
Family law

PERRY KANSAGRA versus SMRITI MADAN KANSAGRA

Reports of the counsellor touching on the home environment, personalities, and relationship with the child are admissible for the court’s determination of custody and guardianship; normal confidentiality principles are subject to statutory exception in such matters, for the best interest of the child. The High Court erred in treating the review as a proper remedy and setting aside its previous judgment based on confidentiality; the proper remedy was appeal, not review.

Source excerpt

  • Child custody
  • Guardianship
  • Mediation confidentiality
  • Parens patriae jurisdiction
  • Family courts act interpretation
Read case analysis
Family law

DR. AMIT KUMAR versus DR. SONILA & ORS.

The custody arrangement was a conscious, mutual decision by the parties, unaffected by force, pressure, or fraud and binding on both. Respondent no.1's later claim for custody was triggered by financial obligations, not child welfare. The Family Court's order granting custody to the appellant was justified and High Court's interference unwarranted. Children should be restored to appellant as per original decree.

Source excerpt

  • Child custody
  • Divorce
  • Guardianship
  • Mutual consent divorce
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

NAGAIAH AND ANOTHER versus SMT. CHOWDAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANOTHER

Order XXXII CPC governs suits by minors; the next friend need not be a guardian under the Hindu Guardianship Act, especially if the natural guardian has adverse interests. In this case, Plaintiff No.1 as next friend was competent to represent Plaintiff No.2 and no prejudice was caused. The High Court erred in relying on the Hindu Guardianship Act to dismiss Plaintiff No.2.

Source excerpt

  • Minor's representation in civil suit
  • Guardianship
  • Next friend
  • Guardian ad litem
  • Adverse interest of guardian
  • Effect of attaining majority by minor
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

ABC versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

In guardianship or custody petitions preferred by the natural mother who is the sole caregiver of the child born out of wedlock, there is no mandatory requirement under Section 11 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 to serve notice to the putative father; the welfare of the child is paramount, and the rights of an uninvolved father do not eclipse those of the mother or the child.

Source excerpt

  • Guardianship
  • Custody
  • Rights of unwed mother
  • Birth registration
  • Privacy
Read case analysis
Family law

SURYA VADANAN versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

Since the first effective order regarding the custody of the children was passed by the foreign (UK) court, the principle of comity of courts requires that the Indian courts defer to the foreign court. The foreign court, having the most intimate contact and closest concern with the children, is best suited to decide their welfare and custody. There were no compelling reasons to override the foreign court’s primacy. The Supreme Court directed that the children be repatriated to the UK for the foreign court to decide custody, with arrangements to ensure the mother’s participation and welfare.

Source excerpt

  • Child custody
  • Guardianship
  • Comity of courts
  • Best interests of the child
  • Foreign judgments
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.