#custody dispute

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.

Karnataka High Court rules that habeas corpus petitions cannot bypass Family Court jurisdiction in child custody disputes, emphasizing that custody decisions must be adjudicated under the Guardians and Wards Act. The court directed a sealed NIMHANS report for judicial evaluation, reinforcing that the child's best interests remain paramount in such proceedings.

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.

Madras High Court mandates mediation and child counselling in guardianship disputes, prioritizing confidentiality and the child’s welfare over adversarial litigation. The ruling sets a precedent for integrating professional counselling into interim parenting arrangements, ensuring decisions align with the child’s best interests under the Guardians and Wards Act.

Rajasthan High Court holds that habeas corpus cannot be invoked to enforce parental custody when the adult corpus voluntarily chooses to live with a parent.

Rajasthan High Court holds that a minor's voluntary expression of desire to remain with a person of choice, free from coercion, must prevail in habeas corpus proceedings.