#child welfare

Meghalaya HC quashed POCSO proceedings after verifying the survivor’s informed consent and her welfare benefits, holding that consensual cohabitation with a child does not bar quashing if safeguards are met.

The Supreme Court quashed a false POCSO FIR in a matrimonial custody dispute and held that arrest requires expert psychological evaluation prior to curb misuse, shielding children and parents from exploitation while upholding Act’s child-welfare aim.

Calcutta HC ruled a child neither orphaned nor abandoned is not in need of care and protection under Sec 2(14) JJ Act, directing CWC to restore custody to adoptive parents by 18 Sept 2026 at 4:00pm and to submit quarterly welfare reports from Dec 2026.

The Uttarakhand High Court barred examining a ten-year-old as a witness in custody cases, holding it harms psychological growth and that informal interaction under Section 17(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 suffices to ascertain the child's preference. The decision shields children from stressful testimony and guides courts on permissible judicial interaction in custody disputes.

The Meghalaya High Court quashed a POCSO FIR against a husband after the adolescent couple married and had a child, applying the Wahlang framework to verify the survivor's informed consent and recognize matrilineal customs. The court mandated scheme benefits for the victim and child within eight weeks and ordered judicial monitoring to ensure compliance.

The Delhi High Court ordered monthly supervised visits to include group activities like board games to strengthen the father-twin bond, and mandated make-up visits with a child counsellor for any missed sessions. The ruling targets parents in contempt for breaching visitation orders, underscoring the court’s focus on child welfare.

Calcutta HC set aside the CWC’s finding that the newborn was abandoned and the parents incapacitated, ruling the committee ignored the procedural safeguards of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The judgment obliges all custody and adoption orders to meet JJ Act due-process, protecting biological parents.

Rajasthan High Court transfers custody of a 17-year-old girl to her mother after she asserts voluntary association with the respondent, affirming habeas corpus jurisdiction over minors. The ruling underscores the paramountcy of the child's welfare and expressed wishes in custody disputes.

The Bombay High Court modified a visitation order to shift the venue from Jaisingpur to Rahata, prioritizing the minor children's educational stability and reducing logistical burden on the custodial parent. This reinforces that visitation arrangements must adapt to the child's daily life, not just procedural convenience, setting a practical standard for family courts handling cross-jurisdictional custody disputes.

The Karnataka High Court ordered transfer of a divorce petition to Bellary where the wife and two minor children reside, holding that the welfare and daily custodial needs of children outweigh the respondent’s convenience in Bangalore. This reinforces that child-centric interests are decisive under Section 24, not merely procedural or economic factors, setting a clear precedent for family courts handling interstate matrimonial disputes.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that guardianship proceedings must be transferred to the child's place of education, affirming that the child's welfare under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act supersedes parental convenience or logistical ease. This sets a clear precedent for courts to prioritize educational stability over jurisdictional convenience in custody disputes, directly impacting military parents and separated families nationwide.

Rajasthan High Court reaffirms that in matrimonial transfer petitions under Section 24 CPC, the wife’s convenience-especially when caring for a minor child-takes precedence over the husband’s hardship. The ruling mandates transfer of proceedings to the wife’s residence where logistical challenges and childcare obligations exist, setting a precedent for prioritizing caregiver burden in family law disputes.

Bombay High Court reinforces that adoption under the Juvenile Justice Act requires a child to be declared legally free for adoption and a favorable home study report. The ruling sets a precedent for courts to scrutinize prospective adoptive parents' suitability, ensuring the child's best interests are prioritized over procedural formalities.

Madurai High Court ruled that a minor’s welfare supersedes parental custody rights when sexual abuse is alleged, directing the child’s placement in a children’s home and mandatory POCSO case registration against the stepfather and uncle. The ruling reinforces that habeas corpus petitions must prioritize the child’s safety over familial claims in abuse cases.

Delhi High Court rules that a natural father’s custody rights under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, cannot be denied merely due to pending criminal allegations. The court held that habeas corpus is maintainable to restore custody unless the father is proven unfit, reinforcing the primacy of natural guardianship over unproven accusations.