Comprehension
It is well settled that while taking a decision regarding custody or other issues pertaining to a child, welfare of the child is of paramount consideration, not rights of the parents under a statute for the time being in force. In Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, [(1973) 1 SCC 840], the Court held that object and purpose of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 is not merely physical custody of the minor but due protection of the rights of ward’s health, maintenance and education. In considering the question of welfare of minor, due regard has to be given to the right of the father as natural guardian, but if the custody of the father cannot promote the welfare of the children, he may be refused such guardianship. The word “welfare” has to be construed literally and must be taken in its widest sense. The moral and ethical welfare of the child must also weigh with the court as well as its physical well-being. Though the provisions of the special statutes which govern the rights of the parents or guardians may be taken into consideration, there is nothing which can stand in the way of the court exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction arising in such cases. Every child has right to proper health and education and it is the primary duty of the parents to ensure that child gets proper education. The courts in exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction have to decide such delicate questions. It has to consider the welfare of the child as of paramount importance taking into consideration other aspects of the matter including the rights of parents also
Question: 1
In which of the following judgments was the constitutionality of Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 challenged?
In which of the following judgments was the constitutionality of Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 challenged?
Updated On: Jul 11, 2024
- Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224
- Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Sucheta Narayan Dastane, 1975 SCR (3) 967.
- Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, (1999) 2 SCC 228.
- Bipin Chander Jaisinghbhai Shah v. Prabhawati, 1956 SCR 838.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (C) : Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, (1999) 2 SCC 228.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
The natural guardian of a Hindu minor is
The natural guardian of a Hindu minor is
Updated On: Jul 11, 2024
- Neither father nor mother
- Both father and mother.
- Mothe
- Father
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (D) : Father
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
Which of the following judgments does not relate to the welfare of minor being of paramount consideration?
Which of the following judgments does not relate to the welfare of minor being of paramount consideration?
Updated On: Jul 11, 2024
- Mauami Moitra Ganguli v. Jayant Ganguli, (2008) 7 SCC 673
- Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, (2011) 11 SCC 1.
- Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42
- Jitender Arora v. Sukriti Arora, (2017) 3 SCC 726.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (B) : Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, (2011) 11 SCC 1.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
The natural guardian of an adopted child as per Hindu law is
The natural guardian of an adopted child as per Hindu law is
Updated On: Jul 11, 2024
- Adoptive father
- Adoptive mother.
- Adoptive father and adoptive mother.
- Neither adoptive father nor adoptive mother.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (A) : Adoptive father
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
Which of the following is not correct regarding the parens patriae jurisdiction?
Which of the following is not correct regarding the parens patriae jurisdiction?
Updated On: Jul 11, 2024
- It is to secure the welfare of minor.
- Welfare of minor is of paramount consideration.
- It is not to secure the welfare of minor.
- Court is called upon in parens patriae to decide the best interest of the child
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (C) : It is not to secure the welfare of minor.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 6
Which of the following judgments relates to the concept of shared parenting?
Which of the following judgments relates to the concept of shared parenting?
Updated On: Jul 11, 2024
- Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan, (2020) 3 SCC 67
- Anurag Mittal v. Shaily Mishra Mittal, (2018) 9 SCC 691.
- Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, 2017 (8) SCC 746
- Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh, (2019) 14 SCC 162
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (A) : Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan, (2020) 3 SCC 67
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top Questions on Family Laws
- As per the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which of the following statement is false?
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Family Laws
- In relation to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 match the following and identify correct answer:Select the correct option:
(A) Conditions for a Hindu Marriage (i) Section 13 (B) Registration of Hindu Marriage (ii) Section 10 (C) Judicial Separation (iii) Section 5 (D) Divorce (iv) Section 8 - AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Family Laws
- An order for the maintenance of wives, children and parents is provided under which Section of BNSS, 2023?
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Family Laws
- As per to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, sapinda relationship with reference to any person extends as far as:
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Family Laws
- Which of the following statements is correct, as per Section 44 of BSA, 2023?
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Family Laws
View More Questions
Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam
- The Companies Act, 2013 does not deal with insolvency and bankruptcy when the companies are unable to pay their debts or the aspects relating to the revival and rehabilitation of the companies and their winding up if revival and rehabilitation is not possible. In principle, it cannot be doubted that the cases of revival or winding up of the company on the ground of insolvency and inability to pay debts are different from cases where companies are wound up under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013. The two situations are not identical. Under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013, even a running and financially sound company can also be wound up for the reasons in clauses (a) to (e). The reasons and grounds for winding up under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013 are vastly different from the reasons and grounds for the revival and rehabilitation scheme as envisaged under the IBC. The two enactments deal with two distinct situations and in our opinion, they cannot be equated when we examine whether there is discrimination or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For the revival and rehabilitation of the companies, certain sacrifices are required from all quarters, including the workmen. In case of insolvent companies, for the sake of survival and regeneration, everyone, including the secured creditors and the Central and State Government, are required to make sacrifices. The workmen also have a stake and benefit from the revival of the company, and therefore unless it is found that the sacrifices envisaged for the workmen, which certainly form a separate class, are onerous and burdensome so as to be manifestly unjust and arbitrary, we will not set aside the legislation,solely on the ground that some or marginal sacrifice is to be made by the workers. We would also reject the argument that to find out whether there was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or whether the right to life under Article 21 Constitution of India was infringed, we must word by word examine the waterfall mechanism envisaged under the Companies Act, 2013, where the company is wound up in terms of grounds (a) to (e) of Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013; and the rights of the workmen when the insolvent company is sought to be revived, rehabilitated or wound up under the Code. The grounds and situations in the context of the objective and purpose of the two enactments are entirely different.
(Extracted, with edits and revision, from the judgement in Moser Baer Karamchari Union Thr. President Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Union of India and Ors, 2023 SCC Online SC 547)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Company Law
- Ahmadi, J. (as he then was) speaking for himself and Punchhi, J., endorsed the recommendations in the following words-The time is ripe for taking stock of the working of the various Tribunals set up in the country after the insertion of Articles 323-A and 323-B in the Constitution. After the incorporation of these two articles, Acts have been enacted where-under tribunals have been constituted for dispensation of justice. Sufficient time has passed, and experience gained in these last few years for taking stock of the situation with a view to finding out if they have served the purpose and objectives for which they were constituted. Complaints have been heard in regard to the functioning of other tribunals as well and it is time that a body like the Law Commission of India has a comprehensive look-in with a view to suggesting measures for their improved functioning. That body can also suggest changes in the different statutes and evolve a model on the basis whereof tribunals may be constituted or reconstituted with a view to ensuring greater independence. An intensive and extensive study needs to be undertaken by the Law Commission in regard to the Constitution of tribunals under various statutes with a view to ensuring their independence so that the public confidence in such tribunals may increase and the quality of their performance may improve.
Before parting with the case, it is necessary to express our anguish over the ineffectiveness of the alternative mechanism devised for judicial review. The judicial review and remedy are the fundamental rights of the citizens. The dispensation of justice by the tribunal is much to be desired.
(Extracted with Edits from R.K. Jain v. Union of India, 1993 (4) SCC 119)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Constitutional Laws
- The elements of tort of negligence consist in – (a) duty of care; (b) duty is owed to the plaintiff; (c) the duty has been carelessly breached. Negligence does not entail liability unless the exacts a duty in the given circumstances to observe care. Duty is an obligation recognised by law to avoid conduct fraught with unreasonable risk of damage to others. The question whether duty exists in a particular situation involves determination of law. Hence, three ingredients are necessary for the existence of a duty of care: (i) foreseeability of the damage, (ii) proximity of relationship between the parties; and (iii) whether it is “just, fair and reasonable” that the law should impose a duty of care. In Caparo Industries Plc. v. Dickman, 1990 2AC 605, the court held that breach of duty is concerned with the standard of care that ought to have been adopted in the circumstances and whether the defendant’s conduct fell below that standard i.e., whether he was careless.
The court while quoting Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum, 1997 stated that as a tort, negligence consists of legal duty to take care and breach of that duty. Duty determines whether the type of loss suffered by the plaintiff in the particular way in which to occurred can ever be actionable. The division of negligence into duty, breach and consequent damage is convenient for the purpose of exposition but it can be confusing because the issues will often overlap. The process of determining a breach of duty involves three steps: First, it is necessary to ascertain the qualities of the reasonable person, given the qualities attributed to him, would have taken in the circumstances. The factors that are permissible to take into account in this regard are prescribed by law, but the amount of care that the reasonable person would have taken is a question of fact. Thirdly, it must be determined whether the defendant took less care than the reasonable person would have taken.
(Extracts from Managing Director, Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Limited v. Deepti Singh and Ors., 2019 SC)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Law of Torts
- Article 14 of the Constitution stipulates that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India. Article 15(1) states that the State should not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Article 15(4) stipulates that nothing in Article 15 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Article 16 deals with equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Clause (1) of Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Clause (2) stipulates that no citizen shall be discriminated in or be ineligible for any employment or office under the State on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them. Clause (4) of the provision states that nothing in Article 16 shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens, which in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. The purpose of the equal opportunity principle in Article 16(1) and the reservation provision in Article 16(4) has emerged as a focal point of the jurisprudence on reservations in this Court. A discussion of the journey of the competing models of equality that the Court has espoused and their evolution over the course of the years is necessary to understand the constitutional vision on equality.
The impugned constitutional amendments by which Article 16 (4-A) and 16 (4-B) have been inserted, flow from Article 16 (4). They do not alter the structure of Article 16 (4). They retain the controlling factors or the compelling reasons which enables the State to provide for reservation keeping in mind the overall efficiency of the state administration under article 335. Sub-categorization within a class is a constitutional requirement to secure substantive equality in the event that there is a distinction between two sections of a class; Sub-classification must not lead to the exclusion of one of the categories in the class. A model that provides sufficient opportunities to all categories of the class must be adopted; and Sub-classification among a class must be on a reasonable basis.
Justice Bela Trivedi opined, in dissent, that presidential list of scheduled castes notified under Article 341 cannot be altered by the States. Any change to this list can only be made by a law enacted by Parliament. Sub-classification, according to her would amount to tampering with the Presidential List and undermine the object Article 341, which aims to eliminate political influence in the SC-ST List. Further, she emphasised the importance of adhering to the rule of plain and literal interpretation. She mentions that any preferential treatment for a sub-class within the presidential list would deprive other classes within the same category of their benefits. In the absence of executive or legislative power, state lack the competence to sub-classify castes and the benefit reserved for all SCs. Allowing states to do so would constitute a colourable exercise of power, which is impermissible under law. Justice Trivedi concluded by affirming that affirmative action by States must remain within constitutional boundaries and held that the law laid down in E.V. Chinnaiah case was correct and should be upheld.
(Extract from The State of Punjab & Ors. v. Davinder Singh & Ors. 2024 SC)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Constitutional Laws
- The environmental rule of law, at a certain level, is a facet of the concept of the rule of law. But it includes specific features that are unique to environmental governance, features which are sui generis. The environmental rule of law seeks to create essential tools such as conceptual, procedural and institutional, to bring structure to the discourse on environmental protection. It does so to enhance our understanding of environmental challenges of how they have been shaped by humanity’s interface with nature in the past, how they continue to be affected by its engagement with nature in the present and the prospects for the future, if we were not to radically alter the course of destruction which humanity’s actions have charted.
The environmental rule of law seeks to facilitate a multi-disciplinary analysis of the nature and consequences of carbon footprints and in doing so it brings a shared understanding between science, regulatory decisions and policy perspectives in the field of environmental protection. It recognises that the “law” element in the environmental rule of law does not make the concept peculiarly the preserve of Lawyers and Judges. On the contrary, it seeks to draw within the fold all stakeholders in formulating strategies to deal with current challenges posed by environmental degradation, climate change and the destruction of habitats. The environmental rule of law seeks a unified understanding of these concepts. There are significant linkages between concepts such as sustainable development, the polluter pays principle etc. The universe of nature is indivisible and integrated. The state of the environment in one part of the earth affects and is fundamentally affected by what occurs in another part. Every element of the environment shares a symbiotic relationship with the others. It is this inseparable bond and connect which the environmental rule of law seeks to explore and understand in order to find solutions to the pressing problems which threaten the existence of humanity. The environmental rule of law is founded on the need to understand the consequences of our actions going beyond local, State and national boundaries. The rise in the oceans threatens not just maritime communities. The rise in temperatures, dilution of glaciers and growing desertification have consequences which go beyond the communities and creatures whose habitats are threatened. They affect the future survival of the entire eco-system. The environmental rule of law attempts to weave an understanding of the connections in the natural environment which make the issue of survival a unified challenge which confronts human societies everywhere.
(Extract from Pragnesh Shah v. Arunkumar Sharma (2022) 11 SCC 493 )- CLAT PG - 2025
- Environmental Law
View More Questions