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.))
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?
According to the passage, which is the most indispensable consideration in deciding the matters of custody of the child?
Updated On: Sep 10, 2025
- 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
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
The most indispensable consideration in deciding matters of child custody, as per the given passage, is the environment conducive to the development of moral and ethical values. The passage emphasizes: 1. The welfare and well-being of the child are paramount, and while physical comforts, health, education, and favorable surroundings are crucial, moral and ethical values hold more importance. 2. In custody cases, the court's role transcends legal statutes and procedures, focusing instead on the child's holistic welfare, with human aspects being key. 3. Multiple Supreme Court cases underline the priority of these values over financial or other considerations. Thus, options such as financial ability of the parents, sex and age of the child, and physical comforts, while relevant, are secondary to moral and ethical upbringing.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
The provision of custody of child under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 gives:
The provision of custody of child under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 gives:
Updated On: Sep 10, 2025
- 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
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 outlines specific guidelines regarding the custody of children. Among the options provided, the correct answer is: Preferential consideration to mother, in case the child is below five years of age.
The supreme consideration in determining custody under this Act is the welfare of the child, as established in case laws such as ‘Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu’ and ‘Gaurav Nagpal v. Semedha Nagpal’. The courts emphasize that decisions should not solely rely on statutory interpretations but also involve humane and ethical considerations for the child’s overall welfare.
Key Points:
- The welfare of the child is paramount.
- Preferential consideration is granted to the mother for children below five years old.
- Court’s decision-making prioritizes child’s comfort, contentment, and developmental needs.
- The child’s moral and ethical upbringing is also crucial alongside physical well-being.
This approach demonstrates the court’s parens patriae jurisdiction, focusing on a child’s best interests by considering all dimensions of their upbringing.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
The sensitivity in judicial decision making is manifest in this passage from the court’s observation that:
The sensitivity in judicial decision making is manifest in this passage from the court’s observation that:
Updated On: Sep 10, 2025
- 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
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
The sensitivity in judicial decision-making regarding the custody of children is embodied in the Hon’ble Supreme Court's observation that custody cases cannot be decided solely by interpreting legal provisions because they require a human touch. This approach acknowledges that these cases involve humane problems within live relationships, necessitating a more compassionate and comprehensive evaluation beyond mere legal stipulations.
The Court, when dealing with custody disputes, operates beyond the constraints of statutes or strict evidentiary rules, emphasizing the welfare and well-being of the child as the key consideration. This includes evaluating not only a child's physical comfort, education, and intellectual growth but also moral and ethical values, which are deemed equally—if not more—important. The child's preferences, if mature enough to express a reasoned opinion, are also taken into account.
Such a perspective was highlighted in the case of ‘Nil Ratan Kundu and another v. Abhijit Kundu’, where the Supreme Court underscored that welfare, ethical wellbeing, and moral upbringing are central to custody decisions, and the parents' legalistic demands should be secondary to the child's overall wellbeing. Similarly, in 'Gaurav Nagpal v. Semedha Nagpal', the Court reiterated the importance of assessing human factors in deciding custody matters to ensure they align with the child's best interests.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
What does the passage state about the opinion of a child who is old enough to state its preference regarding custody?
What does the passage state about the opinion of a child who is old enough to state its preference regarding custody?
Updated On: Sep 10, 2025
- 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
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The passage explains the legal approach towards the opinion of a child regarding custody. According to the law, as outlined in the cases mentioned:
- Nil Ratan Kundu and another v. Abhijit Kundu: The court must consider the child's preference if the child is old enough to form an intelligent preference or judgment. However, the final decision lies with the court, focusing on what is beneficial for the child's welfare.
- Gaurav Nagpal v. Semedha Nagpal: The child's welfare is paramount, considering factors like moral and ethical values. The court's role is to prioritize the child's welfare over the conflicting demands of parents.
the child’s preference must be considered but the court is the final deciding authority regarding the custody
Was this answer helpful?
0
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?
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: Sep 10, 2025
- 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
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
The decision concerning the custody of a child under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 is fundamentally based on the principle that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. The law does not rigidly bind the courts to statutes or strict evidence rules in custody cases. The courts operate under parens patriae jurisdiction, prioritizing the child's welfare, which includes assessing factors like ordinary comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development, and environment. Moral and ethical values are considered equally or more important than physical comforts. Furthermore, if a child is capable of making an intelligent preference, their wishes are also taken into account by the court. Ultimately, it is the duty of the court to make a decision that best serves the child's welfare and well-being, even when faced with conflicting parental demands. This principle has been emphasized by the Supreme Court in various judgments, highlighting the need for a holistic and human-centric approach.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top Questions on Family Laws
- In which case, the Supreme Court has upheld the rights of senior citizens to reclaim property under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007?
- TS PGLCET - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Family Laws
- Fill in the blanks based on the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as to the relation by blood. Two persons are said to be related to each other by __________ when they are descended from a common ancestor by the same wife, and by __________ when they are descended from a common ancestor, but by different wives; two persons are said to be related to each other by __________ when they are descended from a common ancestress but by different husbands.
- TS PGLCET - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Family Laws
- In which case the Supreme Court observed that “She cannot be treated as a chattel at the age of 14 years to hand over her custody to her biological father where she has not lived ever since her birth. The stability of the child is also of paramount consideration”?
- TS PGLCET - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Family Laws
- In which case, the Supeme Court held that an unmarried Hindu daughter can claim maintenance from her father until she is unable to maintain herself, by an application under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956?
- TS PGLCET - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Family Laws
- Under Christian Law, non-compliance of decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights shall act as one of the grounds for divorce after how many years of passing of decree?
- TS PGLCET - 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