Visitors Counter


Random Quotes

Getting down on all fours and imitating a rhinoceros stops babies from crying. (Put an empty cigarette pack on your nose for a horn and make loud "snort" noises.) I don't know why parents don't do this more often. Usually it makes the kid laugh. Sometimes it sends him into shock. Either way it quiets him down. If you're a parent, acting like a rhino has another advantage. Keep it up until the kid is a teenager and he definitely won't have his friends hanging around your house all the time. ~P.J. O'Rourke


Do you think the rules/laws are applied to Fathers more stringently as compared to Mothers?

Resources & Useful links



Bookmark us With

RedditDel.icio.usGet more widgets at VivoCiti.comDiggGoogleHuggReddot@eShiok!LiveFacebookSlashdotNetscapeTechnoratiStumbleUponSpurlWistsSimpyNewsvineBlinklistFurlFarkBlogmarksYahooSmarkingNetvouzShadowsRawSugarMa.gnoliaPlugIMSquidooco.mmentsBlogMemesFeedMeLinksBlinkBitsTailranklinkaGoGo
Module is designed by

Certificate of Appreciation

Click to see PDF

Our Friends

Mynation Foundation

YouCMSAndBlog Module Generator Wizard Plugin

AllVideos Reloaded

For child’s sake, warring parties ready to give house on rent PDF Print E-mail
(0 Votes)
Written by S Shyam Prasad   

A division bench of High Court tells the father and grandparents fighting for the custody of a 12-year-old to use the rental income for the child’s welfare.

A division bench of the High Court of Karnataka on Thursday managed to get two warring parties to reconcile for the sake of a minor child.

 The child’s grandparents and father Amit (name changed) have been fighting a legal battle for the custody of the 12-year-old. They are also fighting another case over a house owned by Amit and the deceased mother Shobha (name changed).
When the custody case came up before Justice N K Patil and Justice S N Satyanarayana, the court suggested that the house be rented out and the income used for the child’s welfare. It wanted the child to be admitted to an international school in Bangalore and the father would pay the fee. Both the parties would relinquish their right to the property in favour of the child. They would have equal days of custody of the child during vacation. "We are not looking at the interest of either party. We are looking at the interest of the child," the court said.
The court said that the parties could file a joint memo in this regard which would result in a consenting order. If they failed to do so, the court said it would pass a compulsive order. Both the parties agreed to file a joint affidavit on Friday morning.
Amit and Shobha married in 1998. They had a child in 2000 and the following year Amit went to Kuwait for work. He returned in 2004. 
In 2005, Shobha committed suicide. Amit was indicted but he was acquitted by the Supreme Court. After Shobha’s death, her grandparents came to live in the house owned by the couple. Subsequently, Amit moved out. Since then, the grandparents have been in custody of the child.
Amit’s counsel told the court that the grandparents were poisoning the child’s mind that the father was responsible for the mother’s death.
Justice Satyanarayana said that even if the grandparents had no intention of speaking against Amit, the loss of their daughter could play on their minds and would inadvertently lead them to poison the mind of the child against him.
The court also observed that the grandparents were not legally or morally right in moving into the house. They should have taken the child to their home and taken care of it.
When the grandparents' counsel said that the court could speak to the child, Justice Patil said, "No talking to the child. Don't bring the child to the court at all."

Related Articles:

Powered By relatedArticle

YouCMSAndBlog Module Generator Wizard Plugin