High Court Judgments Book in 4th Regional Conference

1 For Private Circulation : Educational Purpose Only The Family Courts Act expects the duty-holders like the Court , counsellors, welfare experts and any other collaborators to make efforts for reconciliation . Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1278 of 2016 (Santhini vs. Vijaya Venketesh). COMPILATION OF. LANDMARK Judgments . OF. high COURTS OF INDIA. (Madras high Court , high Court of Delhi, high Court of Karnataka, high Court of Kerala & high Court of judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of andhra pradesh ). ON FAMILY MATTERS. These minor children, for their proper upbringing, need the company of both the parents - mother as well as the father, for financial reasons, security reasons, psychological reasons, etc. They need the love of both their parents. Not only separation of their parents from each other deprives these children 24/7 company of both the parents, when it results in legal battle of custody in the courts, the situation becomes more traumatic for these children because of various obvious reasons.

2 That is why such cases which seriously impact these children are the most unfortunate.. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sikri in Purvi Mukesh Gada Versus Mukesh Popatlal Gada & anr. Criminal Appeal of 2017 in para-1) decided on 4-9-2017. While dealing with judicial separation and divorce, the lofty ideals of the Hindu community and religion shall have to be taken into consideration . Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. N. Shiva Mohana Reddy Vs Smt. Aparna Reddy Decided on 3 September, 2004 (para-6). While considering the paramount interest and welfare of the minor child, maintenance, education and the loving care that the child would receive are the factors to be kept in view.. Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Kalaichezhiyan Srinivasan Versus Nirmala of 2011 Decided on 15 September, 2011(Para-10). For Private Circulation : Educational Purpose Only COMPILATION OF. LANDMARK Judgments . OF. high COURTs OF INDIA. (Madras high Court , high Court of Delhi, high Court of Karnataka, high Court of Kerala & high Court of judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of andhra pradesh ).

3 ON FAMILY MATTERS. Year of Publication : 2018. Compiled By Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority Nyaya Sadan, Near AG Office, Doranda, Ranchi 834002. Ph No. 0651-2482392, 2481520, 2482397 (F). E-mail Website : This book is available on Official Website of JHALSA . Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy has provided immense help in compilation of landmark Judgments of high Courts of India on Family Matters. Justice Patel Acting Chief Justice, high Court of Jharkhand &. Executive Chairman, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority &. Member, Supreme Court Committee for Sensitization of Family Court Matters |kS% 'kkfUrjUrfj{k 'kkfUr%]. i`Foh 'kkfUrjki% 'kkfUrjks"k/k;% 'kkfUr% A. ouLir;% 'kkfUrfoZ'os nsok% 'kkfUrczZ 'kkfUr%]. loZa 'kkfUr%] 'kkfUrjso 'kkfUr%] lk ek 'kkfUrjsf/k AA. 'kkfUr% 'kkfUr% 'kkfUr% AA. May there be Peace in Heaven, May there be Peace in the Sky, May there be Peace in the Earth, May there be Peace in the Water, May there be Peace in the Plants, May there be Peace in the Trees, May there be Peace in the Gods in the various Worlds, May there be Peace in all the human beings, May there be Peace in All, Peace, Peace, Peace.}

4 Our age old culture prays for peace and happiness for one and all. Family is the first and oldest social group. It has played an important role in stability and prosperity of the civilization. Almost everything of a lasting value in humanity has its roots in the family. Peace and harmony in family is important for all round development of children . Family value teaches us to respect the women and elders. Family is an Institution and same has to be sustained . 59th Law Report in 1974 had given its recommendation for having Special Courts for Family Court matters. The Family Courts Act was enacted after one decade in 1984 for adopting human approach in settlement of the dispute and achieving the socially desirable result. Section 9 of the Act imposes a duty upon the family Court Judge to make efforts for settlement. Hon'ble Mr Justice Kurian Joseph, Judge, Supreme Court of India &. Chairman, Supreme Court Committee for Sensitization of Family Court Matters has said that the whole purpose of establishing a Family Court as a different Jurisdictional Court is to have a difference in approach and a difference in attitude.

5 The attitude appropriate in handling a Civil Case or a Criminal Case is not the attitude or approach that one should have in handling a Family Court 's case. This Compilation of Landmark Judgments of Supreme Court of India is aimed at bringing about desired sensitivity in all duty holders ( Family Court Judges, Counsellors, Mediators, Conciliators, Lawyers etc). These Judgments are result of several decades of hard work and experience of the authors. Family disputes have many dimensions, namely : v Maintenance and Alimony v Custody of Children v Visitation Rights v Divorce and Restitution of Conjugal Rights v Stridhan v Domestic Violence A family Court Judge should view the family disputes not through a microscope but with a stethoscope . Hon'ble Mr Justice Ranjan Gogoi has observed in Gaytri Bajaj Appellant Versus Jiten Bhalla Respondent Civil Appeal Nos. 7232-7233 of 2012 that It is not the better right of the either parent that would require adjudication while deciding their entitlement to custody.

6 The desire of the child coupled with the availability of a conducive and appropriate environment for proper upbringing together with the ability and means of the concerned parent to take care of the child are some of the relevant factors that have to be taken into account by the Court while deciding the issue of custody of a minor. In Santhini Vs Vijaya Venketesh , Hon'ble Mr Justice Kurian Joseph has said that : The Family Courts Act expects the duty-holders like the Court , counsellors, welfare experts and any other collaborators to make efforts for reconciliation.. Hon'ble Mr Justice , Judge, Supreme Court of India has said in a matter relating to the custody of child that : These minor children, for their proper upbringing, need the company of both the parents - mother as well as the father, for financial reasons, security reasons, psychological reasons,etc. They need the love of both their parents. Not only separation of their parents from each other deprives these children 24/7 company of both the parents, when it results in legal battle of custody in the courts, the situation becomes more traumatic for these children because of various obvious reasons.

7 That is why such cases which seriously impact these children are the most (Purvi Mukesh Gada Versus Mukesh Popatlal Gada & anr. Criminal Appeal of 2017). All the duty holders under the Family Courts Act 1984 is obliged to handle family matters with heart . Modern day life has given birth to many unforeseen circumstances. Ego has narrowed down the scope of adjustment. Therefore, the Family Court Judge must be well versed in psychology, sociology, history and human behaviour. There is always chance of break through, therefore, Family Court Judge should never stop making effort for conciliation. Hon'ble Mr Justice Kurian Joseph Saheb , in his lordship address in the inaugural session of the 3rd Regional Conference for Sensitization of Family Court Matters at gangtok, Sikkim on 9-12-2017, has said that the Family Court Judge is like a Homeopathic doctor who studies the person, his life style and back ground and then prescribes medicine.

8 The provision in law for Maintenance is social justice legislation and the Family Courts ought to make every endeavour to decide the matter at the am convinced that this Compilation will be able to answer all the queries of the duty holders and guide them in discharge of their duty effectively. The soft copy of this book is available on the website of Jharkhand State Legal Services and the Judicial Acadamies, Law Universities and Academicians should use this work in their respective field. Any suggestion for improvement is highly solicited for incorporating in future editions. Wish Everybody a Very Happy New Year and all the Best! (Justice Patel). INDEX. ALIMONY & MAINTENANCE. 1. Chepuri Hanumantha Raio versus Chepuri Uma 3. andhra pradesh high Court (Criminal Revision Case No. 79 of 2016). 2. Abbayolla M. Subba Reddy versus 15. andhra pradesh high Court (1998 (5) ALD 465, 1998 (5) ALT 152, I (2000) DMC 266). 3. K. Narasinga Rao versus K.

9 Neeraja @ 27. andhra pradesh high Court ( 1056 OF 2006). 4. Vikaas Ahluwalia versus Simran 37. Delhi high Court (FAO 143/2013 and No. 4725/2013). 5. Narinder Pal Kaur Chawla versus Manjeet Singh 43. Delhi high Court (RFA No. 575 of 2005). 6. Shabana versus Shahid 53. Delhi high Court (CRL. ). 7. Kusum Sharma versus Mahinder Kumar 57. Delhi high Court (FAO 369/1996). 8. Mr Noel Lewis Pinto versus Mrs. Shalet D 73. Karnataka high Court (MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL (FC)). 9. Mr Chandrashekar R Shet Versus Mrs Chandrakala C Shet @ 77. Karnataka high Court ( ). 10. Divya Ramesh versus K 79. Karnataka high Court ( (FC)). 11. Dr. Gladstone Versus Geetha Gladstone .. 89. Kerala high Court (MFA. No. 578 of 1997). 12. Babu versus Mariya V. 98. Kerala high Court (OP (FC).No. 1675 of 2013 (R)). 13. Kalaiselvi versus 102. Madras high Court ( (MD) of 2017). 14. versus Jeeva 106. Madras high Court ( (MD). of 2017). 15. Ranganatham versus 112.

10 Madras high Court ( No. 8 of 1988). 16. Versus 118. Madras high Court ( (Npd) (Md) Of 2006). DIVORCE. 17. Dr. N. Shiva Mohana Reddy versus Smt. Aparna 123. andhra pradesh high Court (Civil revision petition no. 2653 of 2004). 18. Anil Kumar Bhutani Versus Manya 127. Delhi high Court MAT. APP.( ) 130/2017 and CM No. 27084/2017. 19. D .. Versus P @ R .. 134. Delhi high Court (MAT. APP.( ) 161/2017). 20. Smt (Dr) Smitha versus Shri 142. Karnataka high Court ( ). 21. Vidya Ramakrishnaiah versus 155. Karnataka high Court (ILR 2005 KAR 838, 2005 (3) KarLJ 347). 22. Shilpa Versus 163. Karnataka high Court ( APPEAL (FC)). 23. Smt. Hemavathi Shivashankar Versus Dr. Tumkur S. Shivashankar and Another .. 171. Karnataka high Court (Regular First Appeal No. 702 of 2002). 24. Versus 189. Kerala high Court ( 324 of 2013 (C)). 25. Vijayamma versus 194. Kerala high Court ( 174 of 2007()). 26. Anthonichamy versus Rani @ 197. Madras high Court ( (MD) of 2007).