Scope for suing for cruelty to child

@ Joseph,

1. My reply in this thread is based on wisdom of Hon'ble SC and Hon'ble HC various judgments. They themself have given custody of minor to father and some Judgments I placed in previous page of this very thread. I am not questioning wisdom of Lordships.

2. What I question the third time is what you telling here that under HUF Hon'ble SC has given custody of minor and a father has no right to keep minors under his custody. FOCUS on this only. 

3. I repeat for the second time I want to be educated by you, kindly place here in this thread  HUF Judgment of SC that you speak of here in first page and again above while replying to me for my study and for readers study (if it interests them) that is all. If you can do that well enough fine, if you cannot I will still differ to you that under HUF custody of minor is not given nor as you say a father has no right ot keep custody of minor with him PERIOD

4. These Journalistic threats you keep with you. You Jurnos are not above law. I offer myself to be present before Rtd. Justice Mr. Katju (PRI) as and when you want me to on this very discussion of this thread. Kindly mention at your convenience date - time and place (address). I am a person who never shy away standing in front of Mr. Katju. I have learnt a lot from his judgments.

5. I never mentioned any Section or Act or Code in any of the replies in this very thread. You are over reading my replies in this very thread. Are you telling us that if a father claims for custody of child (minor) under GWA or for that matter under S. 26 HMA or under S. 21 DVA (for visitation) his petition will not be admitted at all ? (read your last reply to me where you say that it will not be admitted at all, which is idiotic I repeat idiotic statement from a journalist that is why even PTI Chairman says there should be some basic qualification for Court reporters. You can quote this very statement of mine before Mr. Katju whenever you want me to be present before him). Also remove your thick rainbow glass, all the cases in this thread are given by me to @ Stanley upon his request and/or as continuing discussion with @ Stanley for the purpose of this thread post.

6. It would cross you off now to know infact I didnot even reply to the queriest at all in this thread of his. The queriest was first replied by @ Manish then by you which I objected saying under HUF no SC judgment is there where SC granted custody of minor and then based on my reply to you @ Stanley asked me on judgment where mother was 'denied visitation' then I replied to @ Stanley placing two of the paras from a Chennai HC judgment. I feel you are not at all reading the sequence of replies and omitting the respective replier’s contents and jumping line to the best of your journalistic knowledge. I understand all these and expect a journalist not to know legal arguments.  

Finally I repeat I have no concern for your friend at all what he did and how he did it further in future what he is going to do. I am publicly discussing with you on your mentioned HUF SC Judgment for my education that is all.

I wish journo know the meaning of word FOCUS. I repeat focus on what is asked to you or rather requested to place for public discussions and I repeat place here SC HUF Judgment where under HUF custody of minor was given to mother PERIOD

I will not reply to any of you further replies if it deviates from above focus and I will wait for date – time –place to appear before Chairman of PTI and do me a favor carry printouts of this very thread as I don’t want to spend printing cost on your vague discussion. You can pray before PTI Chairman recovery of printing cost J

My Dear & Honourable Mr. Tajobsindia

                                                                   EVERY NOW AND THEN YOU ARE CHANGING YOUR STATEMENT GIVEN EARLIER .NOW YOU ARE POSTING AN ANSWER " THAT THERE IS NO SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT WHERE THE HONORABLE COURT DENYING  CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILD AND THAT TOO IN A HUF TO THE FATHER OF THAT BOY CHILD" . I WILL TAKE THIS AS A CHALLEGE AND GIVE THAT ENTIRE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN THIS REGARD .BUT ARE YOU READY TO ACCEPT THAT AFTER READING THAT JUDGEMENT POSTED BY ME " YOU SHOULD NOT PRACTICE FOR TWO YEARS IN ANY COURT OF LAW IN ANY OF THE CASES ".

                                                           DON'T THINK THAT I AM A JOURNALIST OR A REPORTER . I AM THE OFFICE BEARER CUM ALL INDIA CORRESPONDENT OF THAT ASSOCIATION . NOT ONLT THAT IF YOU GET TIME READ MY COMMENTS IN THE TIMES OF INDIA THAT HAD BEEN PUBLISHED .I HAVE KNOCKED OUT SEVERAL TITLES IN THE TIMES OF INDIA BY POSTING MY COMMENTS ON HIGH PROFILE MATTERS . THE MOST IMPORTANT ARE (1) THE DISCUSSION ON ENTRY OF WALLMART IN INDIA IN THE PARLIAMENT BY OUR HONORABLE MEMBERS .(2) THE CHARGE THAT WALLMART HAD LOBBIED FOR ENTRY INTO INDIA AND FOR THAT THEY HAVE SPENT RS.136 CRORES IN 2012. ONLY AFER THAT THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE HAD REVEALED THAT " BHARTI " HAD SOLD ITS SHARES TO WALLMART AT AN EXORBITANT RATE AND NOW THEY ARE UNDER THE SCANNER . I KNOW THAT BHARTI IS MAKING ITS ENTRY INTO RETAIL TRADE WITH WALLMART . BUT I DID NOT MENTION THAT IN MY COMMENTS . THEN ABOUT LOBBYING FOR WALLMART ENTRY INTO INDIA 235 ORGANIZATIONS FROM INDIA HAD APPROACHED WALLMART FOR A JOINT VENTURE IN INDIA . THE NEXT MATTER IS THAT I WRITE MY REGULAR SURVEYS TO CABLE NEWS NETWORK ( CNN ) THAT COME TO MY MAIL I.D .

                           DON'T THINK THAT I AM A JOURNALIST OR A REPORTER . I WAS A BANK EMPLOYEE WITH THE POST OF VICE PRESIDENT IN MY BANK , OFFICE BEARER OF THE ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF 28 NATIONALIZED BANKS IN INDIA AND TREASURER OF THE TAMIL NADU FEDERATION  FOR 28 NATIONALIZED BANKS IN TAMIL NADU . DO YOU THAT THE TOP EXECUTIVES OF ONE OF THE BANKS AND THAT TOO IN DELHI WERE CONFINED TO THEIR CABIN FOR A WHOLE DAY BY OUR FEDERATION MEMBERS IN THE YEAR 1982 . AT THAT TIME YOU MUST BE IN THE SCHOOL ONLY . I AM ENDING THIS WITH ONLY SOME OF MY POSITIONS WHICH I HELD TILL MY RETITRMENT .

                    DEAR MR. MANISH UDAR , I TOTALLY AGREE WITH WHAT YOU HAVE STATED . SINCE I WAS A UNIONIST FOR MOST PART OF MY LIFE I AM UNABLE TO DIGEST THE WORDS USED BY HIM IN AN OPEN FORUM AND  LEAVE HIM WITHOUT A CHALLENGE. SUCH PERSONS  WITH OVER HEAD WEIGHT WILL BE TAUGHT A LESSON BY SOMEONE IN THE NEAR FUTURE .HIS DOWNFALL IS IMMENENT AND ALL WILL SEE THAT .- JOSEPH WILFRED - 20/04/2013 AT 21.38 HRS.

@To whom it may concern,

It's very unfortunate that people here are spending their time in telling what they are rather than telling how much they can assist to any other person in legal matters.

The ideal answer to the topic in this thread is-

1.The general rule to grant custody of a child to his/her natural mother.

2.However,grant of custody depends upon the circumstances of each of the case and may differ from the general rule.

Whether a person wants to remain anonymous or not is completely a personal choice and matters little.What matters in an open forum like 'Lawyersclubindia' that how and in what way he/she contributes positively and constructively. There are countless person who are memebers of this prestigious website and who are not lawyer but still offering their help/experience.There is no denying of the fact that degree or post is of no use in such open forum but rather how much legal scenario can be shown to others by him or her.

Interpretation of law is not an easy task.But I think,The senior has well shown up this attribute.Before anyone make comments about others,he/she should ask himself/herself if he/she really knows law.

Inferences of above said words left onto readers.

Thanks,

Regards,

@ Joseph

1. FOCUS donot blow your trumpet atleast before me.
2. Agreed for 2 years no courts sightseeing after reading down specific asked SC Judgment.
3. Now let me hear from you specific asked SC Judgment and no time pass with me again and again.

Reminder I

@ Joseph,

You 2 days ago commanded my 2 years and I agreed then and there to you ~ Now after 2 days I request you as first reminder any update on your own spoken Apex Court Judgment as per your own above quoted lines so that we can settle this pending public education issue at the earliest?
Reasoning:
I noticed today you logged on to this forum and caused to do an activity this this reminder 1.

DEAR MR TAJOBSINDIA AND MR. SURESH .A AND MR. MANISH UDAR

I AM NOT MISGUIDING ANYBODY AS MR. SURESH HAD POSTED IN THESE COLUMNS . ALSO AS MY DEAR FRIEND MR. MANISH UDAR HAD ADVISED ME , I AM NOT GETTING INTO ANY ARGUMENTS WITH ANONYMOUS LAWERS . NOW COMING TO   MR . TAJOBSINDIA'S QUESTION NUMBER 2 THAT NO SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT EXISTS WHICH I HAVE WRIITEN IN THESE FORUMS ABOUT A HUF FAMILY CASE IN SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT I AM JUST GIVING THE DETAILS OF THAT CASE WHICH RUNS TO 17 PAGES . BUT NOBODY HAD THE RIGHT TO COMMAND ME OR DICTATE TERMS TO ME THAT I MUST PRODUCE THAT JUDGEMENT IN A DAY OR TWO . I HAVE ALREADY WRITTEN IN THESE FORUMS THAT I AM NEITHER WILLING TO PRACTICE AS A LAWER OR COMPETE WITH THE YOUNGSTERS NOW A DAYS WHO HAVE MADE IT AS A PROFESSION BECAUSE THE LITIGATIONS HAVE GONE TO SUCH A LEVEL THAT THERE IS DIFFICIENCY OF ADVOCATES TO HELP THE LITIGANTS SINCE MANY LITIGANTS FLOOD A PARTICULAR ADVOCATE AND MANY GOOD AND INTELLIGENT ADVOCATES ARE LEFT OUT . LONG BACK THE HIGH COURT CAN BE COVERED BY WALK ITSELF FROM ONE COURT TO ANOTHER . BUT NOW IT HAS BECOME DIFFICULT FOR SENIOR ADVOCATES TO MOVE TO DIFFERENT COURTS IF THE CASES ARE LISTED ON THE SAME DAY . SINCE I AM IN MANY FORUMS I AM UNABLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS POSED TO ME BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT WALKS OF LIFE AND FROM DIFFERENT FIELDS . IN EACH OF MY MAIL I.D. I AM BEING GIVEN 10 G.B. OF SPACE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF ANY AMOUNT .  ABOVE ALL I AM HAVING MY OWN WEBSITE WITH UNLIMITED WEBHOSTING TO CATER TO THE NEEDS OF THOSE PERSONS WHO APPROACH ME ON ONE MATTER OR THE OTHER  

THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT WHICH I HAVE REFERRED IS : - 

CIVIL APPEAL NO: 5099 OF 2007 [ FROM THE FINAL ORDER DATED 13TH JULY 2007 OF THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN FAO NO : 306 OF 2007 ] WITH Crl.No: 491 OF 2006 DECIDED ON NOVEMBER 19TH 2008 . 

BEFORE DR.JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT AND JUSTICE G.S.SINGHVI

APPELLANT           : GAURAV NAGPAL

                       VERSUS

RESPONDENT       : SUMEDHA NAGPAL

THE JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT WAS DELIVERED BY :

DR. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT

ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE :

MR. SHANTHI BHUSHAN , SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT;

MRS. SUMEDHA NAGPAL, RESPONDENT - IN - PERSON

( A ) HINDU LAW --- HINDU MINORITY AND GUARDIANSHIP ACT , 1956 -- Ss. 13 AND 6

( B ) HINDU LAW -- HINDU MINORITY AND GUARDIANSHIP ACT, 1956 , Ss. 13 AND 6 AND 4

( C ) CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971--- S.2(b)

( D ) HINDU LAW ---HINDU MINORITY AND GUARDIANSHIP ACT, 1956 -- S. 13

( E ) FAMILY LAW -- DIVORCE -- JUDICIAL SEPARATION---

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED . COSTS FIXED AT RS. 25,000/-

REST OF THE DETAILS ON SOME OTHER DAY . ONCE I SCAN THE ENTIRE JUDGEMENT I WILL ATTACH THE COPY FOR THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE QUERIESTS. I DON'T KNOW TYPING AND THEREFORE I HAVE TO TYPE WITH ONE FIINGER AND I AM USED TO IT . BUT IT IS DIFFICULT FOR A PERSON TO SEE THE JUDGEMENT AND TYPE THE SENTENCES WIH ONE FINGER . GOOD NIGHT MR. TAJOBSINDIA - JOSEPH WILFRED - 04/05/2013 AT 01.54 HRS ( I.S.T. ) 

1. You claim to know everything and donot play emotions / sentiments card when talking with adults like telling me you type with ½ finger or with all 10 fingers and stop dramatizing your glories to me and whenever you want to talk then talk to the point atleast with me in public forums!

2. The ref.: Gaurav Nagpal Vs. Sumedha Nagpal [(2009) 1 SCC 42] judgment is 31 page long in official space.

3. Point out to readers in this thread where in ref.: Gaurav Nagpal Vs. Sumedha Nagpal [(2009) 1 SCC 42] Judgment that you are placing before me today states any of your words as in  your own mention (reply) in page 1 of this thread which is challenged to you by me and I quote your own wordings in the forum (not mine);

“EVEN IN AN HUF THAT FATHER IS NOT ENTITLED TO KEEP EVEN THE BOY CHILD AND MUST BE HANDED OVER TO THE MOTHER. BOYS TILL THE AGE OF 12 AND GIRLS TILL SHE BECOMES A MAJOR OR GETS MARRIED SHOULD BE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MOTHER ONLY. THIS IS A JUDGEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA”

4. A retd. Vice President of a Bank which you claim you were is expected to know / should know certain basics; usage of words - joint family and Hindu Undivided Family. HUF is used for IT purposes and 'joint family' is used in family relaed cases.  

5. In the ref. decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principle that "the welfare of the child" is the paramount factor to determine as to whom the custody of the child should be given.

............the principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Gaurav Nagpal Vs. Sumedha Nagpal reported in (2009) 1 SCC 42 are very pertinent. Those principles in paragraphs 42 and 43 are set out below:

“42. Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides for custody of children and declares that in any proceeding under the said Act, the court could make, from time to time, such interim orders as it might deem just and proper with respect to custody, maintenance and education of minor children, consistently with their wishes, wherever possible.

43. The principles in relation to the custody of a minor child are well settled. In determining the question as to who should be given custody of a minor child, the paramount consideration is the “welfare of the child” and not rights of the parents under a statute for the time being in force”.

6. Also now note wearing your bifocal glasses reading this reply with ½ finger or 1 finger, I am done discussing this thread post with you NOW and in future whenever you want you can call me before Retd. Jstc. Katju and I will appear before appointed time don't have heart attack until then.

Use of caps lock in the whole post is not eye friendly.!