Singavaram Nagamma v. State of A.P.,
2026 SCC OnLine AP 914, decided on 6-4-2026
Invokes “Ardhangini” concept to appoint wife as guardian of comatose husband.
In a writ petition concerning appointment of a guardian for a person in a comatose state, seeking invocation of the court’s parens patriae jurisdiction in the absence of any statutory mechanism governing such situations, the Single Judge Bench of Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J., held that where an individual was incapable of managing his affairs due to a vegetative condition, the spouse would be the most appropriate person to act as guardian. Invoking the ancient Indian philosophical concept of “Ardhangini”, the Court appointed the petitioner-wife as the legal guardian for the limited purpose of operating the bank account of her husband to meet his medical expenses, subject to safeguards and periodic judicial oversight.
--------------------------
State (UT of J&K) v. Ravinder Kanta,
2026 SCC OnLine J&K 287, decided on 28-4-2026
Government cannot “pick and choose” judgments to accept or assail later as it undermines the principle of finality: J&K and Ladakh HC.
“Where a ruling by a Single Judge has held the field for a significant duration without being disturbed or reversed, it attains the character of a settled position of law and should not ordinarily be unsettled, as doing so would undermine judicial stability, unless the decision is demonstrably per incuriam or palpably erroneous.”
--------------------
Ankur Joshi v. State of M.P.,
2026 SCC OnLine MP 6298, decided on 20-4-2026
Child’s Right to Stay with Mother is a Civilizational Norm, Not Just a Modern Legal Construct.
In a writ petition of habeas corpus, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, for production and custody of the minor children, a Division Bench of Vijay Kumar Shukla and Binod Kumar Dwivedi, JJ., refused to enforce the foreign court order granting the custody of minor children to petitioner father, considering the “welfare” and “best interest” of the minor children. The Court held that the custody cannot be handed over to the petitioner father on the basis of a foreign decree as the welfare of the child is of paramount consideration.
------------------
Akshit Pandey v. State of U.P.,
2026 SCC OnLine All 3131, decided on 21-4-2026
Grants Custody of Infant Child after Mother’s Death to Father, Said Child’s Overall Development outweighs Relative Care.
In a habeas corpus writ petition filed by the father seeking custody of infant child after the mother’s death, the Single Judge Bench of Sandeep Jain, J., granted custody to the father with visitation rights to the maternal relatives., holding that the father, being the natural guardian, is the most suitable person for custody and denying custody at this stage may result in the child growing up without any emotional attachment to the father, which would be detrimental to the child’s overall development.
-------------------
Rizwana v. State of UP,
2026 SCC OnLine All 1318, decided on 25-3-2026
Clarifies applicability of personal law and general law in custody matters, Said Section 6 Guardianship and Wards Act applies to Muslims.
In a writ of habeas corpus filed by a mother seeking production of her children from her husband, the Single Judge Bench of Anil Kumar-X, J., dismissed the petition, holding that it would be appropriate for her to avail the remedy before the Family Court concerned, which is duly empowered to examine all aspects relating to guardianship and custody and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The Court also held that Section 6, Guardians and Wards Act (GWA), 1890, or rather the entire Act, does apply to Muslims as it does not contain any provision excluding such applicability.
------------------
Posts
0 Comments