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

1990 Supreme(Cal) 163

A.M.BHATTACHARJEE, AJIT KUMAR NAYAK
TARUN RANJAN MAJUMDAR – Appellant
Versus
SIDDHARTHA DATTA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
AMAL SINHA, S.N.GANGULY, Sudhis Das Gupta

A. M. BHATTACHARJEE, J.

( 1 ) THE proceeding under S. 25 read with S. 12 and S. 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, giving rise to this appeal, appears to be a tug of war between the father on the one hand and the maternal grand-parents on the other, over the custody of a child who was aged about 11 months only when the proceeding was initiated in November, 1987. There should be no manner of doubt that a child of such tender age ought not to be subjected to tugging by zealous or jealous relations, whoever they may be, fighting with the bellicosity of relentless combatants. It is settled beyond doubt that in matters relating to custody of child, it is not the legal right of the claimant which is decisive, but it is the welfare of the child which is the primary and paramount test and no one can recover custody of a child merely by brandishing his legal right or financial affluence.

( 2 ) AN impression has gained ground, erroneous though, that once a legal guardian proves his lawful right to the custody of the child and that he is in a position, financially and otherwise, to look after the welfare of the child, an order for the return of the child to his custody is almost a must







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