Maintenance and Custody of Child Judgements

1.. Smt. Surinder Kaur V/s. Harbans Singh, 2002(3) RCR (Civil)587 (P& H)- it was held that paramount consideration is welfare of the child. Age, education and desire of the child, especially when he is able to deliver intelligible reasons, must be given priority. If the child was living all along with the mother and has because of her assistance acquired good merit in education with a desire of good promising career, he should not be dislodged at a stage when it is like to affect his carrier adversely. (Red book on Maintenance and Custody of Child page 222)
2.. N. Nirmala V/s. Nelson Jaykumar, 1999 (1) DMC 737 (Madras HC) (DB) - Due to immaturity preference of minor should not control Court as decisive fact in deciding custody of minor.(Red book on Maintenance and Custody of Child page 227)
3.. Keshav Ram Thakur V/s. Suchibai, AIR 1999 MP 260 - Where the minor being of tender age not liable to form any intelligent preference in between grandparents and mother and thus since there is no substitute of mother's love and affection, the application for guardianship of minor by mother against grandparents is liable to be allowed. (Red book on Maintenance and Custody of Child page 245)
4.. Sunita V/s. Shyam Kali, Air 1982 All 1 - A minor child of tender age is not able to form an intelligent preference in a matter relating to his custody as against wishes of his natural parents.(Red book on Maintenance and Custody of Child page 245/55)
5.. Prakash Chander Jain V/s. Chandrawati Jain, Air 1996 Raj.162 - it was held that a minor of 9 years of tender age is not old enough to form an intelligent preference hence relying upon his desire in respect of his custody is unjustified. Mother was highly educated but not employed. Child performed poorly in his examination. No charges of cruelty on father. Father was employed and doing private practice. In the circumstances of the case it was held that father was more competent to look after the child in comparison of mother and order of handing over the custody of child to father was passed(Red book on Maintenance and Custody of Child page 245/53/55)
6.. Gian Chand V/s. Smt. Sudha, Air 2000 P & H 208 = 2002(2) L.J.R. 738 (P& H) it was observed that since a minor, 17 years old boy cannot be considered as a chattel thus when he states that he will not go with his father, he cannot be so compelled.(Red book on Maintenance and Custody of Child page 246) Please note child's age is seventeen and not a 9/12.
7.. Kirti Kumar V/s. Pradip Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1447 - Where father of the minor child was facing charge under section 498-A IPC and also the child expressed willingness to live with maternal uncle and was found to be intelligent enough to understand prevailing situation as well custody of minor child, keeping in view welfare of the child, given in the custody of maternal uncle. (Red book on Maintenance and Custody of Child page 246)
8.. S. Remlu Fatima V/s. Syed Badinudin Pariviz, Air 1984 AP 1 - Since a minor of tender age is not able to form an intelligent preference in between mother and father, then it is the duty of Court to see where the interest of child is secured. (Red book on Maintenance and Custody of Child page 250)