Bombay HC Conducts Emergency Hearing from CJ’s Residence as Court Staff Deployed for Elections  ||  Madras HC: Preventive Detention Laws are Draconian, Cannot be Used to Curb Dissent or Settle Politics  ||  HP HC: Mere Interest in a Project Cannot Justify Impleading a Non-Signatory in Arbitration  ||  J&K&L HC: Women Accused in Non-Bailable Offences Form a Distinct Class Beyond Sec 437 CrPC Rigour  ||  Bombay HC Restores IMAX’s Enforcement of Foreign Awards Against E-City, Applying Res Judicata  ||  Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation of Bail For Man Accused of Assault Causing Miscarriage  ||  J&K&L High Court Invalidates Residence-Based Reservation, Citing Violation of Article 16  ||  Kerala HC Denies Parole to Life Convict in TP Chandrasekharan Murder Case For Cousin's Funeral  ||  High Court Grants Bail to J&K Bank Manager in Multi-Crore Loan Fraud Case, Emphasizing Bail As Rule  ||  J&K HC: Civil Remedy Alone Cannot Be Used To Quash Criminal Proceedings in Enso Tower Case    

X (A Child) No. 1 (Private Surrogacy Arrangement; Summary Dismissal of Renewed Application To Reopen Living Arrangement) - (08 Nov 2016)

Issues once decided cannot be repeatedly re-ventilated and reconsidered

Family

In present case, application by birth mother that, decision which was reached by Honorable Judge Singleton QC in August 2015 as to with whom this child should live, should now be reconsidered. Birth mother clearly seeks that there is a change in child arrangements so that the child ceases to live with Mr and Mrs X and resumes living with the birth mother, with whom she has not now lived for about 15 months since August 2015.

There is some finality in litigation. Society could not function, and indeed the courts would be choked, if issues that are once decided can be repeatedly re-ventilated and reconsidered. Of course, in relation to children the welfare of child concerned must always be the paramount consideration, but welfare of children also requires some certainty and some predictability in their lives. The fact of the matter is that this child is now, on the evidence of Mr Sanders, the guardian, well settled where she is living with Mr and Mrs X and bonded also with her half-brother there and with the wider X family. It would require strong positive reasons now to reverse the decision that was so clearly made in August 2015 and from which the attempt to appeal was so unsuccessful.

It was unjustified to reconsider now the issue of with whom this child lives. Further, it would be quite extraordinarily worrying and potentially damaging to Mr and Mrs X now to embark upon any fuller enquiry into it. Application of the birth mother dismissed.

Tags : CHILD   CUSTODY   APPLICATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved