| ABC v. The State (NCT of Delhi) | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Full case name | ABC v. The State (NCT of Delhi) |
| Decided | 6 July 2015 |
| Citation(s) | 2015 SCC OnLine SC 609 [1] |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | Vikramjit Sen |
ABC v. The State (NCT of Delhi) is a case decided by a two-judge bench of the Supreme court of India, which held that an unwed woman belonging to the Christian faith can become a legal guardian of her child without the father's consent.
An unwed woman belonging to the Christian faith (who did not want to be identified) gave birth to a son in the year 2010. She was well-educated, gainfully employed and financially secure and raised her child without any assistance from the child's father. She intended for her son to be her nominee in all her savings and other insurance policies. However, she was informed that for her son to be the nominee, she must either declare the name of the father or get a guardianship/adoption certificate from the Court. [2]
Subsequently, the woman filed an application at the Guardian Court to be declared as the sole guardian of her son. The Guardian Court however, informed her that her application could not be processed unless she named the father of the child and gave his whereabouts. She refused to do so. She did, however, file an affidavit stating that if at any time in the future the father of her son raises any objections regarding her son's guardianship, her guardianship could be revoked or altered. She also had published a notice of her application in a daily newspaper Vir Arjun, Delhi Edition. The Guardian Court however, dismissed her application on 19 April 2011, because she declined to disclose the identity or whereabouts of the father of her child. [2]
The woman appealed the decision of the Guardian Court to the Delhi High Court, but the High Court dismissed her appeal at the preliminary stage and reasoned that a natural father could have an interest in the welfare and the custody of his child even if there was no marriage. The High Court also reasoned that the woman's allegation, that she was single, could not be established without notifying the father of the application having been filed. The High Court stated the father's presence was necessary for it to decide on the woman's application. [2]
The woman appealed the decision of the Delhi High Court to the Supreme Court of India, where she argued that there were three reasons for not naming the father: she did not wish to disclose his identity as there was a risk that he would deny paternity as he was already married; she feared that this would affect her child. Secondly, such a revelation might have repercussions on his family considering his marital status. Thirdly, she argued that her fundamental right to privacy would be violated if she was compelled to disclose the father's name.
The State of Delhi opposed her arguments in the Supreme Court, stating that Section 11 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, which applies to Christians in India, requires that a notice must be given to the 'parents' of a child, before a guardian is appointed. Further, the State of Delhi submitted that Section 19 of the same Act stated that a guardian could not be appointed if the father of the child was alive and fit to be appointed a guardian of the child. The State of Delhi submitted that for these reasons the judgement of the High Court was valid.
The Supreme Court felt that the arguments of the State of Delhi and the Delhi High Court judgement had lost sight of an essential feature of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, contained in Section 7 of the same Act. The Act is primarily concerned with the welfare of the minor child. With specific reference to children of unwed parents, the Supreme Court highlighted the fact that both Hindu and Mohameddan law in India recognised that custody of children of unwed parents was given to the mother. Under Christian law in India as well, the domicile of origin of the child belonging to unwed parents is the country of the child's mother at the time of the child's birth. [3] The Supreme Court observed that when it came to the welfare of the child (of unwed parents), priority, pre-eminence and preference are given to the mother over the father.
The Supreme Court considered the equivalent laws in the United Kingdom, the United States, Ireland, Philippines, New Zealand and South Africa, and concluded that the preponderant was that the unwed mother possesses primary custodial and guardianship rights with regard to her children and that the father is not conferred with an equal position merely by virtue of having fathered the child.
A parent is a caregiver of the offspring in their own species. In humans, a parent is the legal guardian of a child. A biological parent are the people whose gamete resulted in a child, a male through the sperm, and a female through the ovum. Biological parents are first-degree relatives and have 50% genetic meet. A female can also become a parent through surrogacy. Some parents may be adoptive parents, who nurture and raise an offspring, but are not biologically related to the child. Orphans without adoptive parents can be raised by their grandparents or other family members.
The status of women in India has been subject to many changes over the span of recorded Indian history. Their position in society deteriorated early in India's ancient period, especially in the Indo-Aryan speaking regions, and their subordination continued to be reified well into India's early modern period.
Indira Jaising is an Indian lawyer and activist. In 2018, she was ranked 20th on the list of 50 Greatest Leaders of the World by Fortune magazine. Jaising also runs Lawyers' Collective, a non-governmental organization (NGO), the license of which was permanently cancelled by the Home Ministry for violations of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act. The central government of India accused the NGO of using foreign funds in a manner not mentioned in the objectives of the NGO. The Bombay High Court later passed the order to de-freeze the domestic accounts of her NGO. The case is ongoing in the Supreme Court of India.
The main family law of Japan is Part IV of Civil Code. The Family Register Act contain provisions relating to the family register and notifications to the public office.
Mary Roy was an Indian educator and women's rights activist known for winning a Supreme Court lawsuit in 1986 against the gender biased inheritance law prevalent within the Syrian Malabar Nasrani community of Kerala. The judgement ensured equal rights for Syrian Christian women as with their male siblings in their ancestral property. Until then, her Syrian Christian community followed the provisions of the Travancore Succession Act of 1916 and the Cochin Succession Act, 1921, while elsewhere in India the same community followed the Indian Succession Act of 1925.
The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 is a United States federal law that governs jurisdiction over the removal of American Indian children from their families in custody, foster care and adoption cases.
The men's rights movement in India is composed of various independent men's rights organisations in India. Proponents of the movement support the introduction of gender-neutral legislation and repeal of laws that they consider are biased against men.
Abortion in India has been legal under various circumstances with the introduction of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Regulations, 2003 were issued under the Act to enable women to access safe and legal abortion services.
The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA) was enacted in India in 1956 as part of the Hindu Code Bills. The other legislations enacted during this time include the Hindu Marriage Act (1955), the Hindu Succession Act (1956), and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (1956). All of these acts were put forth under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru, and were meant to codify and standardise the current Hindu legal tradition. The Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956 dealt specifically with the legal process of adopting children by a Hindu adult, and with the legal obligations of a Hindu to provide "maintenance" to various family members including their wife or parents, and in-laws.
The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act was established in 1956 as part of the Hindu Code Bills. Three other important acts were also created during this time and they include the Hindu Marriage Act (1955), the Hindu Succession Act (1956), and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (1956). All of these acts were put forth under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru, and were meant to modernize the then current Hindu legal tradition. The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956 was meant to enhance the Guardians and Wards Act of 1890, not serve as its replacement. This act specifically serves to define guardianship relationships between adults and minors, as well as between people of all ages and their respective property.
The Hindu Marriage Act is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted in 1955 which was passed on 18th of May. Three other important acts were also enacted as part of the Hindu Code Bills during this time: the Hindu Succession Act (1956), the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (1956), the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (1956).
Child marriage in India, according to the Indian law, is a marriage where either the woman or man is below the age of 21. Most child marriages involve girls, many of whom are in poor socio-economic conditions.
Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court family law case which argued that a New York law, which allowed unwed mothers, but not unwed fathers, a veto over the adoption of that couple's children, was discriminatory.
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 570 U.S. 637 (2013), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held that several sections of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) do not apply to Native American biological fathers who are not custodians of a Native American child. The court held that the procedures required by the ICWA to end parental rights do not apply when the child has never lived with the father. Additionally, the requirement to make extra efforts to preserve the Native American family also does not apply, nor is the preferred placement of the child in another Native American family required when no other party has formally sought to adopt the child.
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the fathers of children born out of wedlock had a fundamental right to their children. Until the ruling, when the mother of a child born out of wedlock was unable to care for the child, through death or other circumstances, the child was made a ward of the state and either placed in an orphanage or foster care or for adoption.
Recognition is the process in some jurisdictions whereby a man is recognised as the father of a child in situations of no presumption of paternity, generally because the mother is unwed. Historically, the Roman law principle of mater semper certa est causes the action was not available to mothers, but the introduction of in-vitro fertilisation has changed that to change. Recognition is an act that confers legitimacy on the child.
In 2003, Nigeria adopted the Child Rights Act to domesticate the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Children's Rights Act of 2003 expands the human rights bestowed to citizens in Nigeria's 1999 constitution to children. Although this law was passed at the Federal level, it is only effective if State assemblies also codify the law. The bill was first introduced in 2002, but did not pass because of opposition from the Supreme Council for Shari'a. The act was officially passed into law in 2003 by Former President Chief Olusegun Obansanjo as the Children's Rights Act 2003, in large part because of the media pressure that national stakeholder and international organizations put on the National Assembly.
J. McD v P.L and B.M[2007] IESC 28, [2008] ILRM 81 is an Irish Supreme Court case the rights of a sperm donor to access a child born through his donation. The Appellant, who was the biological father, questioned whether he could be a guardian of the infant despite never having had a romantic relationship with the first named respondent who was the mother. The case raised important questions around the Irish legal definition of "family." The case is also important because the Supreme Court over-turned a High Court ruling that had relied on Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Shalu Nigam is an Indian lawyer, feminist legal scholar, and author. She was the petitioner in the landmark case Shalu Nigam v. Regional Passport Officer, decided on 17 May 2016, which held that passports can be issued without requiring the name of the father.
Deepika Singh versus Central Administrative Tribunal &Ors.(2022) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that widens the definition of 'family' under Indian law.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)