SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Bom) 1954

MANGESH S. PATIL, Y. G. KHOBRAGADE
Sunil – Appellant
Versus
Sahebrao Shankar Jagtap – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
R. N. Dhorde, Advocate, V. R. Dhorde, Advocate, S. G. Sonawane, Advocate

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The welfare of the minor children is the paramount consideration in custody matters (!) (!) . - The father is the natural guardian with a preferential right to custody under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, Section 6 (!) (!) (!) . - The court considered welfare, ethical upbringing, economic well-being, overall comfort, health, education, and development of the minors (!) (!) . - The court interacted with the minors and noted their wishes in deciding custody (!) . - The Family Court’s denial of custody due to pending criminal trial was set aside; custody of minor children was awarded to the appellant father (!) (!) . - Grandparents were given visitation rights on specific days (!) . - The order emphasizes modifying custody in favor of the natural guardian when welfare is served (!) (!) .

What is the welfare principle in custody disputes as applied in this judgment?

What is the or the natural guardianship right of the father under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, and how did it affect custody?

What factors did the court consider besides pending criminal proceedings when deciding custody?


JUDGMENT

Y. G. Khobragade, J. - Admit. The appeal is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both sides.

2. By the present appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the Family Court, Ahmednagar dismissing the petition (D1/2021), filed by the appellant under section 25 of the Guardians and Wads Act, 1890 for custody of his two minor children i.e. present respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are his in-laws i.e. parents of his deceased wife Priyanka.

3. It is the case of the appellant that, on 20.02.2014, his marriage was solemnized with Priyanka, as per custom and rites prevailing in their community and out of marital tie, on 19.01.2015 they were blessed with a male child Shubham (Respondent No.3) and on 05.03.2019, a female child, Samrudhi (Respondent No.4). Priyanka was having some health issues. Her maternal house is situated in the same city, hence, since 10.09.2019 she started residing at her maternal house. However, on 03.12.2019, around 8.30 to 9.00 p.m. Priyanka committed suicide while residing at her maternal house and the fact was informed to him through phone but after hearing the sa

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
      whatsapp-icon Back to top