Custody of Minor–
|
The Children Act, 1974
The Children Act, 2013
Custody of Minor–
Considering the facts and circumstances- especially the facts that minor
S.A.M.M. Zohaibuddin has already attained the age of almost 7 years and he
is now residing along with his ailing elder brother in his father’s house
and is being taken good care of by his father, grandfather and grandmother,
we are inclined to allow the prayer of the leavepetitioner to retain the
custody of his minor son S.A.M.M. Zohaibuddin till disposal of Family Suit.
.....S.A.M.M. Mahbubuddin =VS= Laila Fatema, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM
(AD) 468]
....View Full Judgment
|
S.A.M.M. Mahbubuddin =VS= Laila Fatema |
3 LM (AD) 468 |
Section 2(f)
|
In view of the definition of child as appearing in section 2(f) appellant
Nasir ought to have been tried by Juvenile Court. Trial of child along with
adult is forbidden by law. The trial of the appellant being held not by
Juvenile Court is hit by want of jurisdiction Md Nasir Ahmed vs State 42
DLR (AD) 89
|
Md Nasir Ahmed vs State |
42 DLR (AD) 89 |
Section 2(f)
|
Child Witness
A child witness who is himself a victim of assaults by the assassins of his
father and saw the accused persons killing him and he testifies in details
before the Court about the occurrence and remains unshaken in the face of
cross-examination is a competent witness and he can be safely relied upon.
Forkan alias Farhad and another Vs. The State, 15 BLD (AD) 163
|
Forkan alias Farhad and another Vs. The State |
15 BLD (AD) 163 |
Section 2(f)
|
The Code of Criminal Procedure 1898—- Section 491—Judicial custody of
minor girl— Father is legally entitled to her custody—
The father as lawful guardian is legally entitled to the custody of his
minor daughter. The opinion of immature mind of a minor girl is immaterial.
On the basis of the unwillingness of the girl, she can not be kept in
judicial custody for indefinite period.
Mongol Chandra Nandi (Sree) Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Home Ajjairs and others— 2, MLR(1997) (AD) 62.
|
Mongol Chandra Nandi (Sree) Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and others |
2 MLR (AD) 62 |
Section 66
|
Under this section it is for the ourt to consider whether a person charged
with ai offence and brought before it for trial appears to be a child or
not and then proceed accordingly. Abdul Munem Chowdhury @ Momen vs State 47
DLR (AD) 96.
|
Abdul Munem Chowdhury @ Momen vs State |
47 DLR (AD) 96 |
Section 66
|
Presumption and determination of age
Under Section 66 of the Children Act it is for the Court to consider
whether a person charged with an offence and brought before it for trial
appears to be a child or not and then to proceed accordingly.
In the instant case the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that the
age of the petitioner could not be less then 16 years. Hç also noticed
that there was sign of interpolation in the registraiion card and the
certificate issued from the school. The learned Sessions Judge did not rely
on those documents. From the materials on record the learned Additional
Sessions Judge found it difficult to hold the petitioner to be a child on
the date of framing of charges. The learned trial Court committed no
illegality.
Abdul Munem Chowdhury alias Momen Vs. The State, 15 BLD (AD) 184
|
Abdul Munem Chowdhury alias Momen Vs. The State |
15 BLD (AD) 184 |
Section 66(1)
|
It provide that when it appears to the Court that a person charged with an
offence is a child, the Court is required to direct an enquiry to ascertain
the age of the accused. When an accused is above 16 years of age at the
time of framing of the charge he is not entitled to get the benefit of the
Children Act
Bimal Das Vs. The State 14 BLD (AD) 218
|
Bimal Das Vs. The State |
14 BLD (AD) 218 |
Custody of a minor girl—
|
Code of Criminal Procedure 1898— Section 491—
Custody of a minor girl-Determinattion of age of the victim—Acceptability
of father's statement when supported by school certificate and opinion of
Radiologist—
In a case for bail of a minor girl in judicial custody the High Court
Division is not precluded from deciding the case on merit by reason of the
order of the Appellate Division directing retaking of the girl to judicial
custody arising out of adinterim matters. In deciding the age of the victim
girl pending determination by the trial court during trial, the statement
of the father when supported by the school certificate and the opinion of
the Radiologist can well be accepted even in the face of different opinion
of the Medical Board. High Court Division is not required to proceed with
the hearing of the bail petition in the absence of the peititioner or his
lawyer, but it needs to decide the criminal appeal or criminal r vision on
merit even in the absence of. the appellant or the petitioner as the case
may be.
Basha Dev Chatterjee Vs. Umme Salma and another— 4, MLR (1999) (AD) 209.
|
Basha Dev Chatterjee Vs. Umme Salma and another |
4 MLR (AD) 209 |