SHEILA B DAS Vs. P R SUGASREE
LAWS(SC)-2006-2-16
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KERALA)
Decided on
February 17,2006
SHEILA B.DAS
Appellant
VERSUS
P.R.SUGASREE
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SARASWATIBAI SHRIPAD VED V. SHRIPAD VASANJI VED [REFERRED TO]ROSY JACOB VS. JACOB A CHAKRAMAKKAL [REFERRED TO]
HOSHIE SHAVAKSHA DOLIKUKA VS. THRITY HOSHIE DOLIKUKA [REFERRED TO]
KUMAR V JAHAGIRDAR VS. CHETHANA RAMATHEERTHA [REFERRED TO]
KURIAN C JOSE VS. MEENA JOSE [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
SHRI ASHWIN CHAUDHRY VS. SMT. KIRAN CHAUDHRY [LAWS(UTN)-2016-6-25] [REFERRED TO]NILESH K.PATEL VS. JAYSHREEBEN R.SHAH [LAWS(GJH)-2019-2-153] [REFERRED TO]
MASTER ARJUN VS. SHIVANI CHANDRA [LAWS(ALL)-2006-5-83] [REFERRED TO]
JAYA W/O VISHNU PHALAK VS. VISHNU S/O MADHUKAR PHALAK, [LAWS(BOM)-2010-2-228] [REFERRED]
PRAVIN VS. ALKA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-4-239] [REFERRED TO]
SHAILESH KHANDELWAL VS. MEENAKSHI KHANDELWAL [LAWS(CHH)-2010-11-17] [REFERRED TO]
V. SRIDEVI VS. C.S. MANI [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-953] [REFERRED TO]
BIJU K.V. VS. NEENU ROY [LAWS(KER)-2015-3-186] [REFERRED TO]
MAMTA SINGH VS. KAMALKANT GAUTAM [LAWS(ALL)-2009-3-154] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN KASHYAP VS. SONI KASHYAP [LAWS(CHH)-2020-6-62] [REFERRED TO]
ALAMELU SOCKALINGAM VS. V.VENKATACHALAM [LAWS(MAD)-2012-11-55] [REFERRED TO]
ARWA TAHA SAIFUDDIN AND ORS. VS. TAHA MUFADDAL SAIFUDDIN AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-12-85] [REFERRED TO]
SNEHA MILIND KALE VS. MILIND SHRIKRISHNA KALE [LAWS(BOM)-2021-11-327] [REFERRED TO]
MASTER SATYA (CORPUS) VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-1-111] [REFERRED TO]
GAYTRI BAJAJ VS. JITEN BHALLA [LAWS(SC)-2012-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
BHARTI AGARWAL VS. VIKAS AGARWAL [LAWS(ALL)-2013-8-55] [REFERRED TO]
C. SANGEETA DEVI VS. M/S. CHILAMBI VENKATA LASKHMIDHAR [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-1-7] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL SATHAR A VS. ANOOJA BASHEER [LAWS(KER)-2014-8-907] [REFERRED]
LT COL MANISH SEHGAL VS. MEENU SEHGAL [LAWS(DLH)-2013-12-233] [REFERRED TO]
AAKANSHA ROY RASMUSSEN VS. ADWAIT ANIL DIXIT [LAWS(BOM)-2015-2-282] [REFERRED TO]
PARVEEN BEGAM, DIVORCED W/O MAHFOOJ KHAN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS VS. MAHFOOJ KHAN, S/O KALLAN KHAN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O JAWAHAR WARD, GARHAKOTA, DISTRICT SAGAR (M.P.) [LAWS(MPH)-2016-8-50] [REFERRED TO]
J SELVAN VS. N PUNIDHA [LAWS(MAD)-2007-7-389] [REFERRED TO]
SHOBHA DUGGIRALA VS. MADHUKAR DUGGIRALA [LAWS(MAD)-2009-11-371] [REFERRED TO]
M ISAKKIAMMAL VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE TUTICORIN DISTRICT TUTICORIN [LAWS(MAD)-2012-2-467] [REFERRED TO]
RUPA MAHESH PAI VS. MAHESH VINAYAK PAI [LAWS(BOM)-2006-5-52] [REFERRED TO]
SAVITHA SEETHARAM VS. RAJIV VIJAYASARATHY RATHNAM [LAWS(KAR)-2020-9-409] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN VS. SAVITA DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-2008-1-54] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMSHER SINGH VS. JASBIR KAUR [LAWS(HPH)-2012-3-6] [REFERRED TO]
AMMU AJIT VS. PREM CHANDER S. [LAWS(KER)-2016-4-34] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL SATHAR A. VS. ANOOJA BASHEER [LAWS(KER)-2014-8-627] [REFERRED TO]
P SENTHIL KUMAR VS. R SUNITHA [LAWS(MAD)-2010-11-430] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The appellant, who is a paediatrician by profession, was married to the respondent, who is a lawyer by profession, on 29th March, 1989, at Thrissur in kerala under the provisions of the Special marriage Act. A girl child, Ritwika, was born of the said marriage on 20th June, 1993.
(2.)As will appear from the materials on record, the appellant, for whatever reason, left her matrimonial home at Thrissur on 26th february, 2000, alongwith the child and went to Calicut without informing the respondent. Subsequently, on coming to learn that the appellant was staying at Calicut, the respondent moved an application in the High Court at kerala for a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, which appears to have been disposed of on 24th March, 2000 upon an undertaking given by the appellant to bring the child to thrissur.
(3.)On 24th March, 2000, the respondent, alleging that the minor child had been wrongfully removed from his custody by the appellant, filed an application before the family Court at Thrissur under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and also Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and guardianship Act, 1956, which came to be numbered as OP 193 of 2000 and OP 239 of 2000.
(2.)As will appear from the materials on record, the appellant, for whatever reason, left her matrimonial home at Thrissur on 26th february, 2000, alongwith the child and went to Calicut without informing the respondent. Subsequently, on coming to learn that the appellant was staying at Calicut, the respondent moved an application in the High Court at kerala for a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, which appears to have been disposed of on 24th March, 2000 upon an undertaking given by the appellant to bring the child to thrissur.
(3.)On 24th March, 2000, the respondent, alleging that the minor child had been wrongfully removed from his custody by the appellant, filed an application before the family Court at Thrissur under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and also Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and guardianship Act, 1956, which came to be numbered as OP 193 of 2000 and OP 239 of 2000.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.