Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., A. VARADARAJAN AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.
Dr. Mrs. Veena Kapoor, Petitioner
Versus
Varinder Kumar Kapoor, Respondent.
S. L. P. (Crl.) No. 1073 of 1981
Decided on 6-4-1981.
Guardian and Wards - Custody of children - Welfare of minor - Legal right - Petitioner is wife of respondent - Two, it appears, are not living together. After their estrangement, their 11/2 year old child, Akhil Ishwar, is in the custody of the respondent - Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, asking for custody of child alleging that the respondent was in illegal custody of child - Petition having been dismissed by a learned single Judge of High Court, petitioner has filed this petition for Special Leave to appeal - It is well settled that in matters concerning custody of minor children, the paramount consideration is welfare of minor and not legal right of this or that particular party - Held, It is difficult for us in this habeas corpus petition to take evidence without which question as to what is in the interest of child cannot satisfactorily be determined – Court therefore, direct that learned District Judge, Chandigarh, will make a report to us before 23rd of this month on the question as to whether the custody of child should be handed over to petitioner-mother, taking into consideration interest of minor - Learned Judge will give liberty to the parties to adduce evidence on question in issue - Parties have agreed to appear before learned District Judge - Learned Judge will give necessary directions to the parties for expeditious disposal the matter - Order accordingly.
ORDER:— The petitioner, Dr. Mrs. Veena Kapoor, is the wife of the respondent. The two, it appears, are not living together. After their estrangement, their 11/2 year old child, Akhil Ishwar, is in the custody of the respondent. The petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition (No. 33 of 1981) in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, asking for the custody of the child alleging that the respondent was in illegal custody of the child. The petition having been dismissed by a learned single Judge of the High Court, the petitioner has filed this petition for Special Leave to appeal.
2. It is well settled that in matters concerning the custody of minor children, the paramount consideration is the welfare of the minor and not the legal right of this or that particular party. The High Court, without adverting to this aspect of the matter, has dismissed the petition on the narrow ground that the custody of child with the respondent cannot be said to be illegal.
3. It is difficult for us in this habeas corpus petition to take evidence without which the question as to what is in the interest of the child cannot satisfactorily be determined. We, therefore, direct that the learned District Judge, Chandigarh, will make a report to us before 23rd of this month on the question as to whether the custody of the child should be handed over to the petitioner-mother, taking into consideration the interest of the minor. The learned Judge will give liberty to the parties to adduce evidence on the question in issue. The learned District Judge may either take up the matter himself or assign it to an Additional District Judge, if there is any at Chandigarh.
4. Parties have agreed to appear before the learned District Judge on Thursday, April 9, 1981 at 11.00 a.m. The learned Judge will give necessary directions to the parties for the expeditious disposal of the matter.
5. The matter will be listed before us on Monday, April 27, 1981.
Order accordingly.
For Citation : AIR 1982 SC 792
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
