AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1675 ::2010 AIR SCW 2261 ::2010 (4) AIR Jhar R 280 ::(2010) 1 CLR 806 (SC) ::(2010) 1 WLC(SC)CVL 568 ::(2010) 2 MarriLJ 64 ::(2010) 2 CivilCourtC 328 ::(2010) 1 HinduLR 521 ::(2010) 3 CivLJ 253 ::2010 (4) SCC 409 ::(2010) 2 RecCivR 521 ::(2010) 3 Scale 187 ::AIR 2011 SC (Civil) 2157 ::(2010) 4 AndhLD 65 ::(2010) 3 Cal HN 187 ::(2010) 79 All LR 716 ::(2010) 4 Bom CR 255 ::(2010) 3 All WC 2492 ::(2010) 1 DMC 524 ::(2010) 3 ICC 166 ::(2010) 3 Mad LW 594 ::(2010) 4 Mad LJ 534 ::(2010) 2 JCR 126 (SC) ::(2010) 2 Raj LW 1128 ::(2010) 88 AllIndCas 48 (SC) ::(2010) 3 Guj LR 1833

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Delhi)

Hon'ble Judge(s): G. S. Singhvi, A. K. Ganguly , JJ

Hindu Marriage Act (25 of 1955) , S.26— Child - Custody and visitation rights - Orders as to - Are interlocutory - Can be moulded and changed as per needs of child - Plea that since order as to custody and visitation rights are not mentioned in divorce decree - They cannot be changed - Not tenable. In a matter relating to custody of a child, the Court is dealing with a very sensitive issue in considering the nature of care and affection that a child requires in the growing stages of his or her life. That is why custody orders are always considered interlocutory orders and by the nature of such proceedings custody orders cannot be made rigid and final. They are capable of being altered and moulded keeping in mind the needs of the child. That being to the plea that since order as to custody and visitation rights are not reflected in divorce decree they cannot be altered by filing an application u/S. 26 is not tenable.(Para 15 16) In the instant case a divorce was granted on mutual consent. The terms and conditions as to custody of boy child were contained in the petition for divorce by mutual consent. The custody of child was to be with his mother and father had visitation rights. The mother subsequently got a job in Australia and, therefore, sought modification of visitation rights of father. The Court consi....