The Telangana High Court addressed a serious violation of a visitation order after an advocate-mother relocated three minor children to Bhopal without permission. Holding the act to be wilful disobedience, the Court directed the immediate return of the children so the mother could first purge the contempt before defending her actions.

In a significant ruling on cross-border child custody, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held the mother in contempt for wilfully failing to produce the child in an ongoing US–India dispute. The judgment clarifies the enforceability of domestic court orders despite foreign jurisdiction claims, applies the principles of wilful disobedience, and sets an important precedent for international custody enforcement in India.

Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld a Family Court order granting a father weekly visitation rights while retaining custody of the minor daughter with the mother, holding that in child custody and guardianship disputes under the Guardians and Wards Act and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child, not the statutory rights of either parent.

This case was a landmark judgment related to the custody of children and the role of the father in child rearing. The Supreme Court ruled that the father has a fundamental right to seek custody of his children, even if the mother is the primary caregiver. This case shifted the traditional perception that mothers are always the preferred custodians and emphasized the importance of equal parenting.

This case dealt with the issue of child custody and the welfare of the child in divorce proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled that the paramount consideration in child custody matters is the best interest of the child, and that both parents must have an equal say in the upbringing of the child. The judgment reinforced the idea that the custody of children should not be solely determined by the legal rights of the parents but should prioritize the emotional and developmental ne

In India, family disputes often carry a deep emotional and psychological weight. Matters like divorce, child custody, and domestic violence can feel overwhelming, especially for women and children who may already be in vulnerable positions. Family Courts were created to handle these issues with empathy and care, balancing the legal process with the emotional well-being of those involved. Among the most delicate of these cases are those involving child custody . Here, parents

In Sarita Sharma v. Sushil Sharma , the petitioner husband had filed for divorce in U.S. courts . During the ongoing custody proceedings, where both parties had been appointed as managing conservators  of their children, the wife brought the children to India, allegedly without informing the husband. The husband alleged that the children were in illegal custody  of the wife, and the High Court initially directed Sarita Sharma to restore custody of the two children  to him and

In a petition challenging the Family Court’s decision, which found that the mother was suffering from psychiatric disorders and granted permanent child custody to the father, the Division Bench of Justices Devan Ramachandran and M.B. Snehalatha, JJ. while setting aside the impugned orders, observed that postpartum depression, while common in some women, is typically temporary and does not persist indefinitely. The Bench emphasized that alleging that the mother was still suffe

In the present case dealing with forcible removal of minor child by parent to new place, an appeal was filed by the wife challenging the order dated 15-4-2024, whereby the guardianship petition filed by the wife under Sections 7, 8, 9 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (‘G&W Act’) was rejected. Further, the petition was also filed by the husband praying for a writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the production of the male minor child of the parties, and further seeking p