<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1992 (8) TMI 310 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300110</link>
    <description>An order staying or refusing to stay proceedings under Section 10 CPC was held appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent because it has sufficient finality and affects party rights. In the custody dispute, the father&#039;s guardianship petition was stayed since the wife&#039;s pending matrimonial proceedings at Bombay already placed custody directly and substantially in issue, and the child&#039;s welfare remained paramount. Because the minor was below five years, custody ordinarily lay with the mother, and the matrimonial court could grant appropriate custody orders. Interim custody to the father was refused, and the later guardianship proceeding was stayed to avoid inconsistent adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2022 13:15:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=666931" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (8) TMI 310 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300110</link>
      <description>An order staying or refusing to stay proceedings under Section 10 CPC was held appealable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent because it has sufficient finality and affects party rights. In the custody dispute, the father&#039;s guardianship petition was stayed since the wife&#039;s pending matrimonial proceedings at Bombay already placed custody directly and substantially in issue, and the child&#039;s welfare remained paramount. Because the minor was below five years, custody ordinarily lay with the mother, and the matrimonial court could grant appropriate custody orders. Interim custody to the father was refused, and the later guardianship proceeding was stayed to avoid inconsistent adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300110</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>