Bombay HC: Insolvency Cannot be Used to Evade a Family Court’s Maintenance Order  ||  Kerala HC: Forklifts and Factory Cranes Are Motor Vehicles and Must be Registered under MV Act  ||  Guj HC: Edible Crude Palm Kernel Oil Qualifies for Duty Exemption; End-Use Condition not Applicable  ||  NCLAT Delhi: Advance under Land-Development MoU is not Financial Debt and Cannot Trigger CIRP  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Cannot Change Capital Structure of a Legally Compliant Successful Auction Purchaser  ||  Supreme Court: Endless Investigation and Long Delay in Filing Chargesheet Can Justify Quashing Case  ||  SC: Landowners Accepting Compensation Settlements Cannot Later Claim Statutory Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Provident Fund Dues Have Priority over a Bank’s Claim under the SARFAESI Act  ||  Supreme Court: Indian Courts Cannot Appoint Arbitrators for Arbitrations Seated Outside India  ||  Madras HC: Police Superintendent not Liable For IO’s Delay In Filing Chargesheet or Closure Report    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved