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.

After a mother spent INR 26 lakh raising her child alone for 16 years, the Telangana High Court took a firm view of the husband’s minimal contribution and directed him to pay INR 30 lakh before visitation could begin. This case highlights financial manipulation patterns often seen in family disputes.

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.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the creation of a charge over the husband’s share in family properties, ruling that it ‘benefits the interest of the wife and minor son.’ This case clarifies when courts can secure maintenance using property, how desertion must be proven, and why interest rates must comply with Section 34 CPC.

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 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