Comprehension
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Nil Ratan Kundu and another v. Abhijit Kundu’ 2008(3) Apex Court Judgements 232 (SC), while granting the custody to the maternal grandparents observed: In our judgement, the law relating to custody of a child is fairly well settled and it is this. In deciding a difficult and complex question as to custody of minor, a Court of law should keep in mind relevant statutes and the rights flowing therefrom. But such cases cannot be decided solely by interpreting legal provisions. It is a humane problem in live in relationship and is required to be solved with human touch. A Court while dealing with custody cases, is neither bound by statutes nor by strict rules of evidence or procedure nor by precedents. In selecting proper guardian of a minor, the paramount consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the child. In selecting a guardian, the Court is exercising parens patriae jurisdiction and is expected, may bound, to give due weight to a child’s ordinary comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favorable surroundings. But over and above physical comforts, moral and ethical values cannot be ignored. They are equally, or we may say, even more important, essential and indispensable consideration. If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference or judgement, the Court must consider such preference as well, though the final decision should rest with the Court as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Gaurav Nagpal v. Semedha Nagpal’-(2009)1 SCC 42, while giving paramount importance to the welfare of the child, which should include moral and ethical values, besides ethical well-being, observed as under: 
When the court is confronted with conflicting demands made by the parents, each time it has to justify the demands. The Court has not only to look at the issue on legalistic basis, in such matters human angles are relevant for deciding those issues. The Court then does not give emphasis on what the parties say, it has to exercise a jurisdiction which is aimed at the welfare of the minor. As observed recently in Mausami Moitra Ganguli case, the Court has to give due weightage to the child’s ordinary contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favorable surroundings, but over and above physical comforts, the moral and ethical values have also to be noted. They are equal if not more important than the others. 
(Extracts from Jaswinder Singh and Another vs Surjit Singh, AIR 2010 (NOC) 425 (P. & H.))
Question: 1

According to the passage, which is the most indispensable consideration in deciding the matters of custody of the child?

Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
  • Financial ability of the parents
  • Sex of the child and its age at the relevant time
  • Physical Comfort, possibility of recreational activities of the child
  • Environment conducive to development of moral and ethical values
Show Solution

The Correct Option is D

Solution and Explanation

The crucial factor in child custody decisions, according to the text, is a setting that fosters moral and ethical development. This passage highlights: 1. The child's welfare is primary; moral and ethical values are more significant than physical comforts, health, education, and environment. 2. Courts prioritize the child's overall well-being, emphasizing human factors over legal processes. 3. Supreme Court rulings support prioritizing these values above financial or other factors. Therefore, parental financial status, the child's sex and age, and physical comforts, while relevant, are secondary to moral and ethical development.
Was this answer helpful?
0
Question: 2

The provision of custody of child under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 gives:

Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
  • Right of custody to mother, if child is below five years of age
  • Preferential custody right to father
  • Custody right to any close relative who is found suitable
  • Preferential consideration to mother, in case the child is below five years of age
Show Solution

The Correct Option is D

Solution and Explanation

The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 provides custody rules for children. The correct answer is: Mothers are given priority if the child is under five years old.
The child's welfare is the most important factor in custody decisions, as seen in legal precedents like ‘Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu’ and ‘Gaurav Nagpal v. Semedha Nagpal’. Courts focus on the child's overall well-being, not just legal rules.
Key Points:
  • Child's welfare is the main concern.
  • Mothers are preferred for children younger than five.
  • Courts consider the child’s happiness and development.
  • Ethical and moral development is also vital.
This shows the court’s role in protecting children’s best interests, considering all aspects of their upbringing.
Was this answer helpful?
0
Question: 3

The sensitivity in judicial decision making is manifest in this passage from the court’s observation that:

Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
  • custody of child can be given to grandparents
  • welfare of child is paramount consideration
  • ethical and moral wellbeing is given priority
  • custody cases cannot be decided solely by interpreting legal provisions but is required to be solved with human touch
Show Solution

The Correct Option is D

Solution and Explanation

Custody decisions necessitate a human touch, as highlighted by the Supreme Court. These cases transcend legal interpretation, demanding a compassionate evaluation of the child's well-being within existing relationships.

The Court prioritizes the child's welfare above strict legal or evidentiary rules. This encompasses physical comfort, education, intellectual growth, and importantly, moral and ethical values. The child's opinion is considered if they can reason maturely.

The case of ‘Nil Ratan Kundu and another v. Abhijit Kundu’ emphasized welfare, ethical well-being, and moral upbringing as central to custody decisions, with parental demands secondary to the child's overall well-being. Similarly, 'Gaurav Nagpal v. Semedha Nagpal' reinforced the importance of human factors in custody decisions to serve the child's best interests.

Was this answer helpful?
0
Question: 4

What does the passage state about the opinion of a child who is old enough to state its preference regarding custody?

Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
  • the child has a right to get custody order according to his preference
  • the child’s preference in relation to his custody is immaterial
  • the child’s preference must be considered but the court is the final deciding authority regarding the custody
  • court is bound by the child’s preference in relation to custody even if it differs in its opinion about whom to grant the custody
Show Solution

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

The passage clarifies the legal stance on a child's opinion in custody cases. Based on the cited cases:
  • Nil Ratan Kundu and another v. Abhijit Kundu: Courts assess a child's preference if the child is mature enough to have a reasoned opinion, but the court ultimately decides based on the child's best interests.
  • Gaurav Nagpal v. Semedha Nagpal: A child's well-being is the top priority, including moral and ethical considerations; the court prioritizes the child's welfare over parental disputes.
In conclusion, a child's preference is taken into account, but the court makes the final custody decision, focusing on the child's overall welfare. The correct summary from the passage is:
the child’s preference must be considered but the court is the final deciding authority regarding the custody
Was this answer helpful?
0
Question: 5

The considerations for the decision in relation to custody of child, is subject to which of the following basis as mentioned in Sec. 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956?

Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
  • Welfare of the child is the paramount consideration
  • Wishes of the child form the primary basis in custody cases
  • Child’s health and educational needs are primary considerations
  • Suitability of the person claiming custody is the basic consideration a Protection Order has a time limit of six months, while a Residence Order is permanent
Show Solution

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Under Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, custody decisions prioritize the child's welfare. Courts aren't strictly bound by legal rules in these cases. They act in the child's best interest, considering factors like well-being, health, education, and environment. Ethical and moral values are as important as physical comforts. A child's wishes are considered if they can express a preference. The court's primary duty is to ensure the child's welfare, even amidst parental disagreements. This principle, reinforced by Supreme Court rulings, stresses a comprehensive and child-focused approach.
Was this answer helpful?
0

Top Questions on Family Laws

Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam

An unpleasant tussle ensured between the TATA Sons and Cyrus Pallonji Mistry (“CPM”) in October 2016, when Mistry, who was the sixth chairman of Tata Sons, was ousted from the position of Executive Chairman of Tata Sons Limited. CPM took over as the chairman in 2012 after Ratan Tata announced his retirement. Tata Group patriarch Ratan Tata had personally asked Cyrus Mistry to resign as chairman of Tata Sons as the board had lost faith in him, but his refusal led to the removal via majority vote. Cyrus Investments Private limited and Sterling Investment Corporation Private Limited belonged to the Shapoorji Palloni Group in which CPM held a controlling interest (about 2% of the issued share capital of Tata Sons). Seven out of the nine directors of Tata Sons voted for CPM’s replacement after Farida Khambata abstained and Mistry was declared ineligible to vote as he was an interested director. Mistry challenged his removal, accusing the board of mismanagement and of oppressing minority shareholders. however, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) rejected his petition. After this Mistry challenged his removal in National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). In 2018, NCLAT order restored Mistry as the group’s executive chairman. Tata Sons challenged that NCLAT order in Supreme Court. CPM also challenged the order for few more relief. Supreme Court stayed NCLAT’s order reinstating Cyrus Mistry as the executive chairman of Tata Sons and restoring his directorships in the holding company as well as three group companies, with a preliminary observation that the first impression of the order was “not good” and that the tribunal ‘could’ not have given consequential relief that had not been sought in the first place. Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided the case in favour of Tata Sons. One of the issues decided by Supreme Court was that “whether the case was fit to be qualified as a situation of ‘Oppression and Mismanagement’ under Section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013?”. On this issue, the Supreme Court observed that “unless the removal of a person as a chairman of a company is oppressive or mismanaged or done in a prejudicial manner damaging the interests of the company, its members or the public at large, the NCLT cannot interfere with the removal of a person as a Chairman of a Company in a petition under Section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013.” This case highlighted the point that “an executive chairman does not have sovereign authority over the company. In corporate democracy, decision making always remains with the Board as long as they enjoy the pleasure of the shareholders. Likewise, an executive chairman will continue as long as he/she enjoys the pleasure of the Board. An assumption by the executive chairman that he/she would have a free hand in running the affairs of the company is incongruous to corporate governance and corporate democracy. The Tribunal held that the concept of ‘free hand rule’ is antithesis to collective responsibility and collective decision making”.
[Based on Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Cyrus Investment Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC 122].
View Solution
Alastair Hudson in his book ‘Securities Law’ First Edition (Sweet & Maxwell), 2008 at page 342, refers to ‘Restricted Offers’ and noticed that there is no contravention of Section 85 of FSMA 2000, if: “(b) the offer is made to or directed at fewer than 100 persons, other than qualified investors, per EEA State”. The purpose underlying that exemption, the author says, is mainly the fact that the offer is not being made to an appreciable section of “the public” such that the policy of the prospectus rules generally is not affected. Further, the author says that “Self-evidently, while an offer to 99 ordinary members of the public would be within the literal terms of the exemption, it would not be the sort of activity anticipated by the legislation. Moreover, if a marketing campaign were arranged such that ordinary members of the people were approached in groups of 99 people at a time in an effort to avoid the prospectus rules, then that would not appear to be within the spirit of the regulations and might be held to contravene the core principle that a regulated person must act with integrity.”
I may, therefore, indicate, subject to what has been stated above, in India that any share or debenture issue beyond forty-nine persons, would be a public issue attracting all the relevant provisions of the SEBI Act, regulations framed thereunder, the Companies Act, pertaining to the public issue. Facts clearly reveal that Saharas have issued securities to the public more than the threshold limit statutorily fixed under the first proviso to Section 67(3) and hence violated the listing provisions which may attract civil and criminal liabilities. Principles of listing, which I may later on discuss, is intended to assist public companies in identifying their obligations and responsibilities, which are continuing in nature, transparent in content and call for high degree of integrity. Obligations are imposed on the issuer on an ongoing basis. Public companies who are legally obliged to list their securities are deemed to accept the continuing obligations, by virtue of their application, prospectus and the subsequent maintenance of listing on a recognized stock exchange. Disclosure is the rule, there is no exception. Misleading public is a serious crime, which may attract civil and criminal liability. Listing of securities depends not upon one’s volition, but on statutory mandate.
[Extract from Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Para 89-91, Civil Appeal No. 9833/2011 (SC)]
View Solution
The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words, they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it. The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. In the past, it was thought that it included just two rules namely: (1) no one shall be a judge in his own case (Nemo debet esse judex propria causa) and (2) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem).
Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi-judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably. But in the course of years many more subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice. Till very recently it was the opinion of the courts that unless the authority concerned was required by the law under which it functioned to act judicially there was no room for the application of the rules of natural justice. The validity of that limitation is not questioned.
If the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice one fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable to administrative enquiries. Often times it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial enquiries. Enquiries which were considered administrative at one time are now being considered as quasi-judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi-judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries. An unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have more far reaching effect than a decision in a quasi-judicial enquiry as observed by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [Civil Appeal No. 990/68, decided on 15-07- 1968], the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a court that some principle of natural justice had been contravened the court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case.
[Extract from the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262, decided on April 29, 1969, hereafter ‘A.K. Kraipak’].
View Solution
The doctrine of promissory estoppel is by now well recognized and well defined by a catena of decisions of this Court. Where the Government makes a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the promise and, in fact, the promise, acting in reliance on it, alters his position, the Government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promise notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Article 229 of the Constitution. The rule of promissory estoppel being an equitable doctrine has to be moulded to suit the particular situation. It is not a hard-and-fast rule but an elastic one, the objective of which is to do justice between the parties and to extend an equitable treatment to them. This doctrine is a principle evolved by equity, to avoid injustice and though commonly named promissory estoppel, it is neither in the realm of contract nor in the realm of estoppel. For application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel the promise must establish that he suffered in detriment or altered his position by reliance on the promise.
Normally, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is being applied against the Government and defence based on executive necessity would not be accepted by the court. However, if it can be shown by the Government that having regard to the facts as they have subsequently transpired, it would be inequitable to hold the Government to the promise made by it, the court would not raise an equity in favour of the promise and enforce the promise against the Government. Where public interest warrants, the principles of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked. The Government can change the policy in public interest. However, it is well settled that taking cue from this doctrine, the authority cannot be compelled to do something which is not allowed by law or prohibited by law. There is no promissory estoppel against the settled proposition of law. Doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked for enforcement of a promise made contrary to law, because none can be compelled to act against the statute. Thus, the Government or public authority cannot be compelled to make a provision which is contrary to law.
[Extract from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shree Sidhbali Steels Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 3 SCC 193, decided on January 20, 2011, hereafter ‘Shree Sidhbali Steels’].
View Solution