Every other dispute you will ever have is decided by working out who is in the wrong. A custody matter is not. The court has been given one question — what is best for this child — and the law says so in terms: Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 requires the court to be guided by the welfare of the minor, and Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 makes it the paramount consideration. Parents arrive with the case they have been rehearsing for two years — who left, who lied, who earns what — and discover that almost none of it is being asked about. This page is about the case that is being asked about.
Most people open a page like this on a bad evening, usually within a day or two of something happening — a child not returned after a visit, a message saying you will not be allowed to see them, a notice from a court, or the moment in a separation when somebody first says the word custody out loud. So the practical part comes first and the law afterwards.
The court answers one question — the welfare of the child — and not the question of who was right. Custody, guardianship and access are three separate things, and asking for the wrong one wastes months. A very young child has a starting position under Section 6(a), but it is a starting position and not a rule. And the arrangement two parents write down themselves, in detail, is almost always better for the child than the one a court has to impose on them.
The statutes are unusually direct about this. Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 says that in appointing or declaring the guardian of a minor the court shall be guided by what, consistently with the law to which the minor is subject, appears in the circumstances to be for the welfare of the minor. Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 goes further and says that in the appointment or declaration of any person as guardian the welfare of the minor shall be the paramount consideration — and that no person shall be entitled to act as guardian by virtue of any provision of that Act or of any law relating to guardianship in marriage if the court is of opinion that it will not be for the welfare of the minor.
Read that second half again, because it is the sentence people skip. It says that a legal entitlement can be set aside where the welfare of the child requires it. The Supreme Court applied exactly that in Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal (2008), holding that the statutory right of a parent yields to the welfare of the child; and in Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu (2008) it said that in custody matters the court is not deciding a question of the rights of parents at all. The oldest statement of it is Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal (1973), where the Court observed that children are not property to be divided between two claimants.
Nothing on this page is more useful than that idea, because it re-sorts every argument you were planning to make. A fact helps you if it tells the court something about the child’s life. It does nothing for you — and sometimes actively harms you — if it only tells the court something about the other parent’s character. That is not a rule about being fair. It is a description of what the court was given jurisdiction to decide.
This table is the argument of the page in one place. The left column is what people put in their first draft; the right column is what the court is actually weighing.
| What the parent leads with | What weight it really carries |
|---|---|
| Who was at fault in the marriage | Little, unless the conduct bears on the child — violence in the home, addiction, neglect |
| “I earn more, I can give a better life” | Limited. The other parent’s income is addressed through maintenance, not by moving the child |
| “It is my legal right as the father/mother” | A factor, and expressly subordinate to welfare under Section 13 |
| A large joint family, a bigger house | Relevant only as part of the child’s actual care arrangement, not as a comparison of assets |
| Recordings and messages proving the other parent said something ugly | Usually neutral, often counter-productive, and damaging where the child was recorded |
| Who the child says they want to live with | Considered where the child is old enough, under Section 17(3) — and discounted where it looks coached |
| The child’s school, health, routine and settled surroundings | Heavily. This is the case. |
| Which parent has actually been doing the daily caring | Heavily, and it is provable from third-party records |
| Which parent keeps the other informed and does not obstruct contact | Increasingly, and courts say so explicitly |
If your draft petition is mostly the top half of that table, it is a divorce petition wearing a custody petition’s clothes. Every experienced family advocate has the same first conversation with a new client, and it consists of moving material from the top half to the bottom half.
These get used interchangeably in conversation and they are not interchangeable in a petition.
| Word | What it means | Where it comes from |
|---|---|---|
| Guardianship | Legal authority over the minor — and, separately, over the minor’s property. The power to consent, sign and deal on the child’s behalf | Guardians and Wards Act, 1890; Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956; personal law |
| Custody | Day-to-day care and control — where the child lives, who runs the child’s life | The same Acts, plus Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act inside a matrimonial case |
| Access or visitation | The contact the parent who does not have custody has with the child | Court’s power under the welfare jurisdiction; recognised as the child’s right |
The consequences of the distinction are practical. A parent can hold guardianship and not have custody, which is why a school or a passport office may still require the other parent’s signature even though the child lives with you. A parent can have custody and still be unable to take a decision alone. And a parent with neither still has a claim to access, because access is understood as belonging to the child rather than to the adult who is asking for it.
When you first speak to an advocate, say which of the three you actually want and why. “I want custody” is very often, on examination, “I want the child to keep living with me and I want to stop being cut out of school decisions”, which is a different and much easier case to run.
Two statutes and a personal law usually sit on the same table.
| Law | Who it covers | What it does here |
|---|---|---|
| Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 | General — applies across communities | The machinery: appointing a guardian, custody of a ward, interim orders, and the welfare direction in Section 17 |
| Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 | Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs | Natural guardianship in Section 6, the position for a child under five, and welfare as paramount in Section 13 |
| Personal law | Muslim, Christian, Parsi families | Sets the starting position on guardianship and on the mother’s custody in the early years; the 1890 Act still supplies the procedure |
| Hindu Marriage Act, Section 26 | Where a matrimonial case is already pending | Lets the same court pass custody, maintenance and education orders for the child, and vary them later |
| Domestic Violence Act, Section 21 | Where a DV application is filed | Allows a Magistrate to grant temporary custody, with visitation to the other parent |
| Family Courts Act, 1984 | Delhi and everywhere a Family Court exists | Section 7 gives that court the jurisdiction; the Act also requires it to attempt settlement first |
Whichever of them brings you into the building, the deciding test does not change. Personal law and the 1956 Act tell the court where to start. Welfare tells the court where to finish. That is the reason two families of different faiths, with identical facts, generally get the same answer.
This is the single most misquoted provision in Indian family law. Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act provides that the natural guardian of a Hindu minor boy or unmarried girl is the father, and after him the mother — with the proviso that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother.
Two words carry the whole thing. Ordinarily means it is the normal outcome, not an automatic one; it can be displaced where welfare requires, and Section 13 says welfare is paramount over anything else in the Act. And custody is not guardianship — the proviso is about where the very young child lives, not about who holds legal authority.
What this means in practice is that a father contesting custody of a two-year-old is arguing against a strong starting position and needs something real to displace it, while a mother relying on the proviso alone should know that it is a starting position and not the end of the matter. Neither of those is a prediction about any particular case.
The same Section 6(a) says the father is the natural guardian and “after him” the mother, and for decades that was read literally, as though a living father meant the mother could never act. In Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, decided on 17 February 1999, the Supreme Court read “after” as meaning in the absence of — absence including indifference, or an arrangement by which the father has left the child’s affairs to the mother — so that the mother can act as the natural guardian.
Know the name of that case, because the older reading survives in offices long after it stopped being the law. It comes up when a bank wants a father’s signature on a minor’s account, when a school insists on the father for a form, and when an investment or insurance form has one box for the guardian. The judgment is the answer to all of those.
The statutes do not define welfare, deliberately, because the point of the test is that it is applied to this child rather than to children in general. From the way courts reason about it, these are the strands that recur.
Notice what is not on that list: which parent is morally better, which parent the other family disapproves of, and which parent filed first. The list is also the reason a custody matter is won quietly, months before the hearing, by the parent who has been keeping ordinary records of an ordinary life.
Section 17(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act says that if the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference, the court may consider that preference. There is no age written into the section, because the test is capacity rather than birthdays.
How it is done matters as much as whether. Judges commonly speak to a child in chambers, without either parent present and often without the advocates, precisely so that the child is not put in the position of choosing between two people in front of both of them. A child may also be seen by a counsellor attached to the court.
Two things follow for a parent. First, it is a factor and not a vote — the court is still deciding welfare, and a clear preference from an older child carries weight without being conclusive. Second, and more important: a preference that sounds rehearsed is worth less than nothing. Judges hear a great many children and are not easily persuaded by a nine-year-old using adult vocabulary about a parent. The coaching becomes the evidence.
Parents ask for this constantly, usually having read about it elsewhere, and the honest answer has two halves.
There is no statutory scheme of joint custody in India. The Law Commission of India examined the question and recommended a framework for joint custody and shared parenting in its 257th Report, in 2015. That recommendation has not been enacted. Anybody telling you that joint custody is your right under Indian law is describing a report, not a statute.
What does exist is a very wide discretion. Because the court is directed to do what serves the child, it is not confined to a choice between two households, and orders providing for genuinely shared parenting time — substantial periods with each parent, joint decision-making on school and health, structured holidays — have been passed. Overwhelmingly, though, those arrangements arrive because the parents proposed them, not because one parent demanded them. Which is the practical point: shared parenting in India is much more available by agreement than by litigation.
Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act lets the court make an interim order for the custody and protection of the minor while the application is pending, and Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act allows the same inside a matrimonial case. In a DV proceeding, Section 21 of that Act allows a Magistrate to grant temporary custody with visitation to the other party.
Take interim orders seriously, for a reason that is rarely said out loud. Custody cases are not quick, and an arrangement that has run for a long time becomes an argument in itself — the child is settled, the routine works, disturbing it has a cost. The interim position therefore tends to exert a pull on the final one. That cuts both ways: it is why a parent who has been cut off should apply for access early rather than waiting for the main matter, and why a parent should not agree to a temporary arrangement they cannot live with on the basis that it is only temporary.
This reframing is not a slogan; it is how courts approach it, and it changes what you should ask for. In Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan (2020) the Supreme Court dealt with the child’s right to the love and affection of both parents, and recognised that where physical meeting is difficult, contact can be maintained by telephone and video call. A child is entitled to a relationship with both parents unless there is a reason touching the child’s safety or welfare to limit it.
So an access application is stronger when it is framed around what the child loses than around what the parent is being denied. And it is stronger still when it is specific: a day, a time, a place of handover, a video call at a fixed hour, an arrangement for holidays. Vague orders — “reasonable access”, “as mutually convenient” — are the single largest source of repeat litigation between separated parents, because every week becomes a negotiation and every negotiation becomes a fight.
There is a name for it and courts now use it. In Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh (2017) the Supreme Court addressed parental alienation — the process by which a child in the care of one parent comes to reject the other — and treated it as a matter going to the child’s welfare rather than as an ordinary grievance between adults.
Parents who do this rarely think of it as doing it. It looks like answering the child’s questions honestly, or not hiding what happened, or letting the child decide. In the record it looks like a child who uses adult phrases, who reports events they cannot have witnessed, and who refuses contact for reasons that match one parent’s petition word for word.
If you believe the other parent is doing this, the answer is to place the pattern before the court with dates, and to ask for counselling or a structured arrangement — not to respond in kind. Two alienating parents produce a record in which neither of them looks capable of putting the child first.
A surprising proportion of contested access applications are, underneath, arguments about twenty minutes on a Sunday. The fixes are unglamorous and they work.
Parents resist this level of formality because it feels cold. It is the opposite: it takes the weekly conflict off the child and puts it into a rule. Family courts in Delhi actively encourage arrangements of this kind and have facilities intended to make contact possible where the relationship between the adults cannot support an informal handover.
In Delhi a custody or guardianship matter ordinarily goes to the Family Court. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 gives that court jurisdiction over guardianship of the person of a minor and over custody of and access to a minor. If a matrimonial case is already running between the same parents, custody can be dealt with in that case under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Our Family Court page explains how that court is built differently from every other court you may have seen.
The shortcut people try is a writ of habeas corpus in the High Court, on the reasoning that the child is being wrongfully detained. Occasionally that is right. Usually it is not. In Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari (2019) the Supreme Court held that habeas corpus in a child custody matter is maintainable only in exceptional cases, and that the ordinary remedy lies before the guardianship court, where evidence can be led and the welfare question can actually be examined. A writ is decided on affidavits; a custody question usually cannot be. Filing the extraordinary remedy first often costs months and ends with being sent to the court you should have started in.
Where a genuine question of the child’s safety arises, or a child has been removed by somebody with no lawful right at all, the calculation is different and is for an advocate to make the same day.
New litigants find this frustrating and it is not an administrative delay. The Family Courts Act requires the court to endeavour to assist and persuade the parties to arrive at a settlement, and family courts are equipped with counsellors for exactly that. In a custody matter the reason is more specific: a child does not benefit from an adversarial finding about their parents, and an arrangement both parents have agreed to is one both parents are likely to follow.
Use it properly rather than sitting through it. Go with a written proposal — days, times, holidays, decisions, contact — rather than with a position. Take the counsellor seriously even if you believe the other side will not. And understand the asymmetry: if mediation works you have an arrangement now, and if it fails you have lost very little, while having demonstrated that you came with a workable proposal. That is a good position to be in when the matter is argued.
Yes, and it is usually the better outcome — but be clear about what an agreement is and is not. A private arrangement between parents does not take away the court’s jurisdiction over the child, because that jurisdiction exists for the child’s benefit and not for the parents’. A court can always be asked to look again at whether an arrangement is serving the child, and the welfare test applies to what the parents wrote just as it applies to everything else.
What an agreement does is different and still valuable. A specific, workable, reasonable arrangement demonstrates that both parents can put the child first, and courts give it real weight. Having it recorded by the court converts it into something with teeth. And, less obviously, writing it down forces the fifteen practical decisions that otherwise get fought over one at a time for years.
What an agreement cannot do is bargain away the child’s entitlements — an arrangement by which one parent gives up all contact in exchange for being released from supporting the child is not a bargain the court is bound by, in either direction.
Most plans fail because they are short. Vagueness is not generosity; it is a promise of future argument. A plan worth writing covers all of this.
| Head | What to settle in writing |
|---|---|
| Living arrangement | Where the child lives, and the regular pattern of time with each parent — named days, not “as convenient” |
| Handover | Place, time, who does the travelling, what happens if somebody is late or the child is ill |
| School | Which school, who pays what, who attends meetings, who signs forms, who the school contacts first |
| Health | Routine decisions, emergency decisions, who is informed and how quickly |
| Festivals and holidays | Named individually, including birthdays — the child’s and each parent’s — and school vacations |
| Contact between visits | Calls or video at a fixed time, and a rule that neither parent listens in or hurries them |
| Travel | Notice before taking the child out of the city, and what is required before any travel abroad |
| Information | School reports, medical reports and any change of address or phone number shared within a fixed number of days |
| Review | How and when the plan is revisited as the child grows, and how a change is proposed |
| Disagreement | What the parents do before either of them files anything — the counsellor, a mediator, a cooling period |
None of that is legal drafting. It is thinking done in advance by the two people best placed to do it, at the one moment when they are both willing to. We draft these as a written arrangement when both parents are negotiating; where a wider family settlement is involved, a family settlement agreement may be the vehicle. Whether to have the terms recorded by the court is a question for your advocate, and the answer is usually yes.
Parents fuse these two and the fusion damages both. Custody is about where the child lives. Maintenance is about the child being supported, and it is owed regardless of which parent the child lives with. A parent is not entitled to withhold contact because support has not been paid, and a parent is not entitled to withhold support because contact has been refused. Courts say this repeatedly and litigants keep doing it.
The framework for maintenance — who can claim, under which provision, and how an order is enforced — is set out on our maintenance page, and within a DV proceeding on the domestic violence page. Where income has to be proved or answered, the income affidavit is usually where it starts. This page prints no figures and no formula for the same reason it prints no timelines: they are decided case by case and anything printed here would be wrong for most readers.
A large share of post-separation disputes are conducted entirely through institutions, and school is the commonest battleground: a parent removed as the contact, a transfer done without telling the other, a name changed on the record, a parent refused the report card.
The practical points are these. A parent does not lose their standing with the school merely because the child lives with the other parent, and a court order dealing with school information is an ordinary thing to ask for. Moving a child’s school during a pending matter, without consent or leave, is treated seriously and is a common own goal. And where records are wrong — a misspelt name, a wrong parent’s name, a date that does not match the birth certificate — correct them through the proper route rather than in the middle of a dispute, because our page on correcting educational documents exists precisely because these corrections are slow and are needed at the worst moment.
Passport and travel questions for a minor are where an ordinary dispute becomes urgent, because what happens can be very hard to undo.
A minor’s passport application ordinarily engages both parents, and the passport authority has its own procedure for cases where one parent’s consent is unavailable or where custody is in dispute — including a route that requires a court order. Where a guardianship or custody matter is pending, the court has control: it can require its permission before the child travels, direct that a passport be deposited, or impose conditions on any trip.
This is a specialist matter and this page will not pretend otherwise. Two facts set the frame. India is not a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. And in Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) the Supreme Court held that an order of a foreign court is one of the factors to be taken into account and is not binding on an Indian court — the welfare of the child remains paramount, and the court may decide the matter itself or order return, depending on what serves the child.
What follows for a parent is narrow and important: do not take a step, or sign anything, on the strength of what a foreign court order appears to require, and do not assume an Indian order will be enforced abroad as a matter of course. Engage somebody who has run one of these matters before, and do it before anybody buys a ticket.
An order that is ignored is the commonest complaint on this subject, and the response people reach for is almost always the wrong one.
A parent who is refused the child at the gate will often go straight to a police station, and it is worth saying plainly how that tends to end. A dispute between two parents about compliance with a court’s order is for that court. The police have no power to decide who should have custody, and an officer faced with two parents and one child will ordinarily do nothing beyond recording the complaint.
The legal position on taking a child from lawful guardianship exists — it is dealt with in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, as it was in the Penal Code before it — but it is aimed at removal by somebody without a right to the child, and a parent’s case is rarely made better by turning a custody matter into a criminal one. What it reliably does is harden the dispute, add a proceeding, and hand the other side something to say about your judgment.
The genuine exceptions are real and they should not be blurred: a child taken by somebody with no lawful right at all, or an immediate fear for the child’s safety. Those are for an advocate to assess on the day. Our FIR page explains what a police station can and cannot do, and our domestic violence page covers the protection route where violence is part of the picture.
There is no separate statutory visitation right for grandparents in India of the kind some other systems have. What there is, is the same welfare jurisdiction, available on an application under the Guardians and Wards Act — and courts have accepted that continuing contact with a grandparent who has been a real part of a child’s life can serve the child’s welfare, particularly where a parent has died, is abroad, or is out of the picture.
Two practical notes. The application succeeds on what it shows about the child, not on the relationship’s title — the grandparent who did the school run for four years is in a different position from the grandparent who is asking on principle. And a grandparent should be careful about being used as a proxy in a fight between the parents, because that is usually visible from the papers and it damages the child’s actual interest along with the application.
The welfare test does not change and the machinery of the 1890 Act does not change. What changes is the record, and these disputes are fought through records more than most. The birth certificate, the school admission form, the hospital file and whatever was written on them years ago all become exhibits. Where an entry is wrong or incomplete, correcting it is slow, and it is far better done now than in the middle of a hearing.
Financial responsibility for a child does not depend on the parents having been married, and is a separate question from who the child lives with. Where paternity itself is in issue, that is a distinct proceeding with its own law, and it is not something to approach without advice.
Marrying somebody does not make you the guardian of their child, and living with a child for years does not by itself create legal authority over them. That distinction surfaces at the worst moments — a hospital, a school form, a passport counter.
Adoption is a different thing altogether and it changes status rather than arrangements: a validly adopted child is the child of the adoptive parents in law. It is governed by its own statutory framework, with conditions about who may give and take in adoption and what consents are needed, and it is not a route for resolving a custody dispute between two living parents. Where a family is documenting an arrangement, our adoption deed page explains what that document does and, equally important, what it does not do. If the object is to give a step-parent authority for practical purposes, ask an advocate what instrument actually achieves that, because the common assumption is usually wrong.
Where a child has a disability, a chronic condition or particular educational needs, the welfare test does not get harder — it gets more concrete, and that is an advantage to whichever parent has actually been doing the work. Therapy appointments, school support arrangements, medical follow-up, the equipment at home and who has been organising all of it become the substance of the case rather than the background to it.
Two things are worth doing early. Put the child’s needs into a single written document — diagnosis-neutral, practical, what the child needs on a normal week — because the arrangement has to be built around it. And deal with any certificate or record the child is entitled to through the proper channel; our page on a disability certificate exists because these papers unlock school and scheme entitlements and take time to obtain.
| Helps | Backfires |
|---|---|
| School reports, attendance records, fee receipts over time | Recordings of the child saying anything about a parent |
| Medical file, vaccination card, prescriptions, appointment records | Screenshots of arguments between the adults |
| A dated contact diary kept unemotionally | Long accounts of the marriage and the in-laws |
| Messages showing you kept the other parent informed | Messages you sent in temper, which arrive as a set |
| The child’s written routine, and who does which part of it | Social media posts about the case or the other parent |
| Evidence you offered contact and it was refused | Evidence gathered by following or watching the other parent |
The pattern is not subtle. The left column is about the child and is produced by third parties. The right column is about the adults and is produced by the litigant. A parent who hands over a thick file of the second kind has told the court something about themselves that no submission can undo.
Two honest things, neither of which helps us sell anything.
The first is that a court cannot give you the arrangement you had before. It can decide where a child lives and when the other parent sees them, and it can enforce that. It cannot produce a co-parent who answers the phone pleasantly, and it cannot restore what the separation cost the child. Parents who go in expecting an outcome that undoes the past are disappointed by even a good order.
The second is that contested custody litigation is slow and it is conducted in front of the child, whatever anybody intends. Children register the tension, the missed handovers and the changed weekends even when nothing is said to them. That is the whole reason this page pushes so hard towards a written arrangement: not because agreement is noble, but because it is faster, it is cheaper, it is more durable, and the child pays a far smaller price for it.
There is a third thing, which belongs here rather than in the marketing. If what you need is contact, a settled routine and to stop being excluded from decisions, say that — and say it early, to a mediator. A very large number of these matters are fought to the end for an outcome that was available in the first month.
The child’s birth certificate. School records — admission form, report cards, attendance, fee receipts, and the name and address of the school. The medical file, including the vaccination record and anything about a continuing condition or therapy. Proof of the child’s address over time. Your own identity and address proof, and the other parent’s details as far as you have them. The marriage certificate, and any order already passed in any proceeding between you — matrimonial, maintenance, domestic violence or otherwise, with dates. The contact diary described above. And a plain written account of the child’s routine.
Several of those will have to be sworn, so plan a trip to an oath commissioner into the timetable rather than discovering it on the morning of filing — the affidavit is the thing everybody leaves last and the counter asks for first. Take a certified copy of every order as it is passed rather than collecting them in a batch a year later, and have anything not in English or Hindi translated before it goes anywhere near the file.
Documents, and nothing beyond them. Nobody here is an advocate, nobody appears before any court, nobody speaks to a school, a police station or the other parent on your behalf, and nobody here can obtain custody or access — there is no such service and anybody offering one is selling comfort to a frightened parent. What we do is the petition and its annexures typed to your advocate’s instructions, the applications — interim custody, access, permission to travel, modification of an arrangement — the reply where something has been filed against you, the affidavits and their attestation, the income affidavit where support is in issue, a written parenting arrangement where both parents are negotiating, a legal notice where your advocate settles that one is needed, certified copies, translations, and the appeal papers later on.
Court work is for your advocate, whose fee is engaged and paid by you directly; we do not quote, collect or share it. The directory is free to open and free to write through, it runs A to Z, and no listing on it was bought.
Ask for legal aid, and ask before the first date rather than after three of them. Free legal services under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 exist for people who cannot pay, there is a legal services desk at the court complexes, and a matter concerning a child is exactly the kind of matter the system was built for. A parent who stays out of court because of money loses by default, and default is the one outcome nobody can appeal against usefully.
Two further things worth knowing. The entitlement is assessed on categories and income limits that are set by the authority and are revised, so this page does not print a figure that would be out of date within a year — ask at the desk. And mediation at the court is part of the court’s own process, which makes the cheapest route to a workable arrangement also the one the court wants you to try.
Open any service page and that document’s price is on it, before you order and before you speak to anybody. Anything payable to a court, an oath commissioner or a government office is shown apart from our figure, because it is not our money.
You hear the whole figure before work begins and nothing is taken in advance. And on this page the useful thing is not the price but the advice that costs us work: the least expensive custody matter is the one that ends in a written arrangement. A parenting plan drafted properly, and recorded by the court, costs a fraction of a contested case and takes a fraction of the time — and the child pays none of the price that the contested version charges. If that route is open to you, take it. If it is not, tell us the ages of the children and the date of any order already passed, because those two facts decide what has to be prepared first.
Listed alphabetically. We do not rank, rate or feature advocates, and nobody pays for a position here — the reason is on our Find an Advocate page. Neither reading a profile nor writing to somebody through it costs anything.
A separate question sits beside this one and is decided by a different machinery. Who may act for the child in a bank, an insurance matter or a property transaction is settled by an appointment under the 1890 Act, which can rest with somebody other than the parent the child lives with. See guardianship certificate.
Those two facts decide almost everything about what has to be prepared and in what order — whether an interim application comes first, whether a written parenting arrangement is realistic, and what the file is missing. Send whatever orders and papers you already have. We will tell you what a complete set looks like and where yours falls short, and put the directory in front of you. We will not tell you that an outcome can be arranged, because it cannot be, and anybody saying otherwise is taking money from a parent at the worst moment. Searching the directory is free and no commission from anybody on it reaches us.
Getting the content taken down and getting the person acted against are two different cases, with different addressees and different clocks. The Grievance Officer’s twenty-four hours and fifteen days, the twenty-four hour rule for nudity and morphed images, the thirty-day appeal almost nobody uses, why Shreya Singhal explains the wall you hit, Zero FIR, preservation requests, and the Section 63(4) certificate that decides whether your screenshots count at all.
Read“The marriage is over” is not a ground — Parliament never made irretrievable breakdown one, and no Family Court can act on it. So the case turns on what you can PROVE. The Section 13 grounds as they actually read, what cruelty means after Samar Ghosh and what it does not, desertion and its two years, the one-year bar, and why Section 23(1)(a) destroys a manufactured ground.
ReadThe danger is rarely a confrontation — it is a false complaint at a police station, and from that moment the State does the family’s work for it. What answers it is her own statement before a Magistrate. Plus the protection petition, why consenting adults are covered married or not, the three-day rule when you move, and the honest Delhi position on the thirty-day notice. For adults only.
ReadThe paper in your hand picks your procedure — not the amount, and not how obviously you are in the right. On a cheque, a note, a written contract or a guarantee, Order XXXVII gives you a suit in which the defendant has no right to defend. Plus the three-year clock, the written acknowledgment that restarts it, why a cheque bounce complaint is not a recovery suit, the mandatory mediation that gets commercial suits rejected, and why winning is not the same as being paid.
ReadTwo questions come before the facts: which door, and how much time is left. Section 6(1) built the Local Committee for the two situations in which the office route is useless — fewer than ten workers, or a complaint against the employer himself. Section 9(1) starts a three-month clock from the last incident, extendable by three, and recent decisions treat the outer edge as a wall. Plus who counts as an employee, what counts as a workplace, the conciliation that may not end in money, the inquiry’s civil-court powers, and why Section 28 means the committee and the police are not an either–or.
ReadWhat your building legally IS decides the case, not what you are complaining about. Most Delhi RWAs sit under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 — a registration statute with no power to levy maintenance, fine a member or recover anything, so the charge rests on the bye-laws and is enforced only by suit. A co-operative society goes to the Registrar under Section 70, where an election challenge dies in thirty days. And a building under the Delhi Apartment Ownership Act, 1986 has a Deed of Apartment, parking inside the statutory definition of common areas, dues as a charge on the flat, and model bye-laws that make elections and audit compulsory.
ReadA challan is two different things wearing one name. Some can be paid and closed; the rest cannot be paid at all, because the compounding list takes in Section 184 only for handheld phone use and leaves Section 185 out altogether. The notice is not a bill either – it is issued under the section headed “Restriction on conviction”. Plus what paying on the Virtual Court actually means, why the “three challans” suspension rule does not exist, and what to do when challans keep arriving for a car you sold years ago. No penalty figures, and the page says why.
Read“Court” on a challan does not mean a trial. It means a Magistrate now holds the file, and that the next click is a plea rather than a payment. How to find the case – and why a driving licence number will never find it. Why the summons only appears after you act. What contesting actually does, and the published figure showing how few people do it. The Act’s own short route, why traffic offences are expressly NOT petty offences under the new code, when you must attend in person, what the court can do to your licence, and what five official sources say – and do not say – about ignoring it.
ReadA licence goes out of two different doors – a government office under Section 19 and Rule 21, or a courtroom on conviction – and the grounds, the appeal and the way back differ for each. The appeal is thirty days from RECEIPT, and we found no provision for condoning delay. A High Court has quashed a suspension that named no ground and recorded no satisfaction. The licence does not simply revive when the period ends: the Act wants a refresher course, or a fresh test and a medical certificate. And almost nobody knows you can apply to have a disqualification removed after six months. Plus why there is no three-challan rule and no points system in force.
ReadEverybody argues “it was not me”. The strongest ground is usually not your evidence at all – it is whether the challan complies with the rule the government wrote for issuing it. Rule 167A requires the camera to carry a yearly approval certificate, requires the challan to be accompanied by FIVE named things including a photograph showing the offence AND the plate, and requires the notice to be sent within fifteen days. And Rule 167A(10) gives an owner who was not driving an express right to say so – a right the portal does not implement. Plus Delhi’s own complaint form, the cloned-plate gap nobody fills, and why Section 209 is a far weaker shield than people think.
ReadWe read the registration chapter of the Act section by section, and the answer is not the one anybody wants: there is no provision by which a seller can take himself off the register without a transfer being completed. Transfer needs the buyer. Cancellation is about the vehicle – destroyed, beyond repair, removed out of INDIA, not out of the State. And the challans are the smallest part of it: the Supreme Court has held that a registered owner who purported to sell but still appears in the records is not absolved of liability for compensation. Form 29 is necessary and has not been shown to be sufficient. One rule prevents all of it.
ReadThe counter says clear the challans first, and nobody says under what. We went looking. The Act has no such provision at all – not in section 48, not in section 50, not in fitness or permits. The power is in a rule, and the rule is narrower than the practice: ninety days, the offender’s own licence or the vehicle named in the challan, and permit, fitness and tax expressly left out. A 2018 ministry circular goes further and cites no authority for doing so. Then on 28 September 2026 the Supreme Court directed much of it anyway. Plus the Kerala judgment holding that a transfer after a death is not a transaction at all.
ReadThe section is headed “offences by juveniles” and the person it makes guilty is an adult: the guardian of the child or the owner of the vehicle, and those can be two different people. ₹25,000 and up to three years, the registration cancelled for twelve months, and no licence for the child until twenty-five. The part nobody prints: Section 199A is not in the compounding list, so it cannot be paid at a counter and must go to court. Plus the complete exemption in sub-section (3), the written representation the Act requires before a registration is cancelled, and why the Pune case was not this section at all.
ReadTwo things are said everywhere about this and both are wrong. It cannot be paid online – Section 185 is absent from the compounding list, so a court challan is issued and a magistrate decides, which the Delhi Traffic Police has itself confirmed. And six months in prison is the maximum, not the outcome: the reported figures show custody in under a tenth of cases, for days. The consequence that is real, and that nobody prints, is the licence – on conviction, disqualification of at least six months, and the provision carries no “special reasons” escape at all.
ReadSince the transport strike of January 2024 every page on this subject has been built on a provision that has never been brought into force. The government’s own release excluded Section 106(2) when the new criminal laws commenced, and the Delhi High Court confirmed in July 2026 that it was still unnotified. The charge in practice carries five years and is classified as bailable. Plus the twenty-four hour reporting window almost nobody knows about, and the ₹2 lakh claim the Supreme Court found only 205 families in the whole country made in a year.
ReadAcross nine pages on challans and road cases we kept saying this is a court application and not something to settle at a police station, and kept not explaining how. This is that page. The old provision had no deadline at all – its replacement gives the court fourteen days to record and photograph the vehicle and thirty days to order its release, and a High Court enforced that in August 2026. Plus why the registration certificate is not the whole answer, how much the bond can lawfully be, and the special statutes where the Magistrate has no power at all.
ReadOur first state page, and the state-specific part is narrower and stranger than people expect. Rajasthan’s notification binds officers by rank and by area: a Head Constable may compound inside the Jaipur and Jodhpur Commissionerates, an Assistant Sub-Inspector everywhere else. The state’s own motor vehicles rules contain no compounding provision at all. Plus the thirty-day appeal to the RTO, a quarter of every compounding fee going to a non-lapsable road safety fund, who really owns the highway cameras, and why a seized vehicle here is so often a mining matter.
ReadSearch “Punjab e-challan” and almost everything you get belongs to Pakistan — the Punjab Safe Cities Authority in Lahore, a row of .pk sites, and commercial services. Not one Indian government result. The reason is that Punjab publishes almost nothing: its Transport Department’s whole notifications page holds nine items, four of them single scanned pages 11, 12, 16 and 17 of one user-charges file, and no section 200 schedule at all — while its own menu sends you to the centre. One date does exist: 19 December 2019, so here alone you can ask for the notification by name. Plus three two-second tells, the Gurmukhi-versus-Shahmukhi check, and why Chandigarh — whose Administrator is Punjab’s Governor — wrote the best schedule in India.
ReadOne question put to thirty-four Indian states and union territories: have you published what a challan costs, and who may take it? Five published a schedule after the 2019 amendment, seven are still running documents older than it — the oldest from 2008 — and around twenty publish no amount at all. In the whole country only two schedules tell you that a helmet offence costs three months of your licence. The full comparison table with every jurisdiction linked, the four jobs a schedule actually does, the patterns we did not expect — and every correction we have had to publish about our own pages, in one place.
ReadThe only jurisdiction in this series that was created while the amended Act was already running. Two Union territories merged on 26 January 2020, but section 17 of the Merger Act kept both rulebooks alive in their own halves — so the real question is whether Daman runs on one schedule and Silvassa on another. Neither exists. The registration mark was unified in four days; the municipal regime in eight months; the compounding schedule not in six years. The Transport Department publishes four documents, the whole legal library two entries, the police force’s rules shelf one reservation roster — and the traffic police page never once uses the word challan.
ReadThe smallest jurisdiction in this series, and the first where we had to ask whether our own question is fair. No two inhabited islands are joined by a road. The police run seven coastal security stations and publish no traffic page. The Department of Road Transport names no Act and no Rules at all — the only one of thirty-three — and a single Motor Vehicle Inspector is Licensing Authority for the whole territory. No section 200 notification could be found. We argue it both ways and then say where we come down: the principle holds, the scale does not — and a one-page notification would settle it.
ReadThe A&N Police publish a ninety-seven row spot fines list — the largest and most current schedule in this series. It marks which offences go to court instead of a counter, notes where the licence is to be seized, and prices the one compoundable limb of section 184 at ₹3,000 while sending the other five to court in the same row. Its notification is dated 22 days after the 2019 amendment — faster than Assam, which we had called the fastest. And row 17 of it caught three wrong figures in our own tables, which this page sets out in full.
ReadOn 25 August 2026 Ladakh notified S.O. 250, directing twenty per cent of everything collected by compounding traffic violations into a road safety fund — non-lapsable, audited by the CAG, and spent on signage, black spots, driving test tracks and ambulances. Puducherry promised exactly this in 2015 and never did it. The same notification calls a compounding fee one taken by “the officers authorised under Section 200” — so that authorisation exists, and we still could not find it. A territory that has published where a fifth of your money goes, and not what the money is.
ReadIn 2023 this territory recorded 13,72,501 traffic challans — 4,28,609 compounded and 9,43,892 sent to court. That is sixty-nine per cent going to a magistrate, which is the opposite of what section 200 exists to achieve, and no other jurisdiction in this series publishes the split at all. We could find no compounding notification here. The Act itself only arrived on 31 October 2019 — sixty days after the amendment — so this is the one place in India that has never known the pre-2019 Act. And in Srinagar 835 cameras now issue challans with no published procedure, for the one offence that costs you your licence.
ReadSikkim publishes the region’s fullest compounding schedule — forty-four priced rows in four columns, graded by repeat offence and by vehicle class — made by Notification No. 121/MV/T dated 29 July 2010. Sixteen years on it still prices a general contravention at ₹100, has no helmet row at all because the section did not exist, and carries two figures now below the statutory minimum. Meanwhile the same department runs AI cameras with a ten-day cure window and a written promise to pay you double if the machine is wrong — the most citizen-protective provision we have found anywhere. The newest enforcement in India, pointed at the oldest price list.
ReadArunachal publishes no compounding schedule, and the only state statute its district transport office names is a taxation Act. But one district did something no government in this series has done: it published what it collected. Lohit reported 3,782 challans and ₹42,18,800 in 2025 — which divides into about ₹1,115 per challan, the first real figure we have had for what is actually being charged on a road rather than what a document says it should be. And behind it sits Article 371H, under which this State’s Governor alone carries a personal responsibility for law and order — a question we raise and deliberately leave open.
ReadTripura publishes twenty-six no-parking zones and twelve parking zones in Agartala, each with a notification number and date; a tax penalty scale; and eleven amendments to its Motor Vehicles Rules, the latest dated five days before the central compoundable list changed. It publishes no compounding amount at all — and its Notices link points at nothing while its Acts link points at a file that will not open. Then its accident figures changed our mind: deaths fell forty per cent in two years while crashes fell nine. That is survival, not prevention — and it forced us to say plainly what a published schedule is actually for.
ReadPuducherry left us asking who the “State Government” is in a Union territory. Chandigarh answers it in practice: its notification of 6 December 2019 says the section 200(1) power is exercised by the Administrator — who since 1984 is, ex officio, the Governor of Punjab. What follows is the best compounding notification we have read: 30 rows, five columns, a column naming the only three authorities who may compound, the three-month licence disqualification written in (the first schedule in the series to do it), section 206(4) on the speeding rows, and section 184 limited in brackets to handheld devices. One problem: the police website misquotes it in four places, including a date fourteen months in the future.
ReadSection 200 gives the compounding power to “the State Government”. Puducherry is a Union territory — and the General Clauses Act says that in a Union territory those words mean the Central Government, while a Council of Ministers advises an Administrator whose disagreements go to the President. We set the provisions out and leave the question open. Underneath: the territory’s rules are not made under section 200 (second jurisdiction proved on the instrument’s face), two different monthly rates sit under one ₹100 cap, the police table of 95 offences carries pre-2019 figures — and the territory’s own 2015 policy recorded a death rate double the national average and promised to notify penalties and fund road safety from compounding.
ReadA compounding arrangement has two halves — what an offence costs, and who may settle it for which offences. Most states publish one. Mizoram publishes both, and they do not match. Its penalties page, updated February 2025, is the only state document in this series that names section 177A, and the only government page that prints the three-month licence disqualification under 194C. Its compounding notification is from 1 August 2018 — still listing section 191, which 2019 removed, and listing nothing 2019 inserted. So a helmet is priced at ₹1,000 on one government page and absent from the other. Plus the only rank floor in India with a uniform condition on it.
ReadTwenty-one pages read a state’s schedule. Nagaland does not publish one — but it published something no other state government did: a notice telling the public that section 200 itself had been replaced. Serial 26 of the Schedule to the Jan Vishwas Act, 2023, commenced by S.O. 227(E) on 13 January 2025, substituted section 200(1) and added 177A, 192B(3) and 201 to the compoundable list — so every schedule in this series is now under-inclusive, and the community service power may have been deleted before any state used it. Following 177A back led somewhere stranger: the regulations it punishes were superseded in 2017, and state departments are still publishing the 1989 version.
ReadTwenty pages built around a table. Meghalaya’s section 200 notification has no table at all — instead of figures it sets a rule: amounts “not lesser than fifty percent of the maximum fine prescribed”. So a 2011 document still works, while Telangana’s fixed schedule from fifteen weeks earlier went stale. But the formula only saved the money, not the scope — its list of nine sections is from 2011, and section 194D for helmets did not exist then. Chasing that took us to something twenty-one pages had never done: reading section 200 itself — which settles that the compoundable list is Parliament’s and not the states’, confirms why drink driving can never be compounded, and reveals a community service power no state has used.
ReadThree pages in this series quoted a state rule capping a composition amount at ₹100 and we treated it as a stale state figure. We were wrong, and Goa proves it. Its rule 54 names its own parent provision — section 50(3), which allows “not exceeding one hundred rupees” in lieu of action under section 177. The ceiling is Parliament’s, not the state’s. In 1988 section 177 also carried ₹100 — the two matched exactly. In 2019 Parliament raised section 177 to ₹500 and ₹1,500 and left that ceiling alone: a 31-year symmetry became a 15:1 gap by nobody doing anything. Also here: the four paperwork delays this reaches, and why the real exposure on a late transfer is never the fee.
ReadOn Shimla’s sealed and restricted roads the law that stops you is not the Motor Vehicles Act — it is a Himachal statute of its own, the Shimla Road Users and Pedestrians (Public Safety and Convenience) Act, 2007. And it contains what no section 200 schedule in India contains: a fifty per cent on-the-spot settlement written into the Act itself, twice. Also here: the RC and the licence impounded if you do not pay; a plea of guilty by money order; time limits that run against the prosecution rather than against you; two appeals with named officers and real deadlines — the first appellate route in nineteen states that is in a statute; and section 22, confirming the Motor Vehicles Act keeps running alongside all of it.
ReadSeventeen states chose their own numbers. Assam did not choose. It issued notification TMV.250/2019/67 twenty-five days after the 2019 amendment — the fastest in India — and across eighty-eight rows gave no discount at all: every figure is the Act’s own. It is also the only state in eighteen that publishes four separate schedules, one per class of officer. The price never changes between them; the permission does. Police cannot compound overloading in Assam, and the two ₹1,00,000 dealer rows are reserved to senior transport officers. On a second speeding offence the schedule offers no amount at all — it offers impounding of the licence under section 206(4). Then in June 2024 the cabinet replaced the two-wheeler document fine with a warning, which is generous and which settles nothing.
ReadThe state publishes its own price list and almost nobody has read it. Notification F 5-5/VIII-Trans/2021 of 25 October 2021, issued under sub-section (1) of section 200 and sitting on the department’s own gazette archive — one of only two post-2019 schedules in India. Forty priced entries, twenty-four kinds of officer down to a Head Constable, and a repeat-offence column used on nineteen of forty rows where Madhya Pradesh — same 1994 rulebook, same design — uses it on six of thirty-one. We measured every row against the Act: a tenth of it on one section, the whole of it on five, one row above the Act and one below its floor. Plus the three-month disqualification that no schedule in seventeen states has ever mentioned.
ReadFifteen pages of schedules answer one question — what does it cost. Kerala answers the one that matters after you have paid. Following the Supreme Court, the High Court has held that even after a section 194 offence is compounded, the excess load cannot be permitted to stay on the vehicle — and directed that the driving licence goes to the Licensing Authority under section 19(1) even where the offence is compounded under section 200. Paying ends the offence. It does not authorise the condition, and it does not stop the second track. Also here: ₹5,000 per light for after-market LEDs, and Kerala’s 726 AI cameras — 1.3 crore challans, ₹900 crore issued, ₹300 crore collected, and ₹34.8 crore of payments frozen over questions about which cameras can even read speed.
ReadEvery schedule in this series was drafted before Parliament rewrote the penalties in 2019 — Telangana’s 2011, Andhra Pradesh’s 2008, Maharashtra’s 2016. Madhya Pradesh issued one on 6 March 2023, superseding all others. It is the only post-amendment list in fifteen states. And it prices three ways at once: by section, by first or second offence, and by what you drive. We checked every row — the repeat column changes the figure on only six of thirty-one, and those six turn out to be a coherent set. Also here: ₹1,00,000 per vehicle aimed at dealers not drivers, ₹300 for a helmet (the lowest anywhere), a load-projection row priced by what you are carrying, and 19 categories of officer including District Magistrates.
ReadBoth states carry a “Compounding” link. Open Andhra Pradesh’s and it is a different law altogether — not section 200 but section 86(5), the money taken instead of suspending your permit. G.O. Ms. No. 332 of 2008, rule 217, priced by what the vehicle is and what it carries: overload ₹2,000 + ₹100 per 100 kg, ₹200 per hour for missing your timings, ₹500 per excess big animal. Medium goods pay half, light goods a third. And AP is the only state in fourteen that publishes the other half too — a prosecution table naming the eight offences no payment will ever close. Its note four is the sting: the published fees are minimums, not prices.
ReadThirteen states in, we finally have the document itself. Every page so far ended the same way — the amounts live in a notification under section 200 that nobody can open. Telangana publishes its own. G.O. Ms. No. 108 of 18 August 2011: eighteen offences, two columns by vehicle, the officers who may take the money — and a proviso that does what nothing else in this series does. It writes the state’s own ceiling: the compounding fee shall not exceed the maximum fine prescribed in the relevant penal section. Odisha showed the floor; this is the roof. One problem: it is dated 2011 and the Act changed in 2019. Also here: the real 80–90% discount of December 2023, a half-rate for agriculturists, and why the police have had to call the yearly “discount” messages fake and fraudulent.
ReadTwelve states in, this is the one that shows you the line. Odisha’s One Time Settlement Scheme for e-challans pending on 31 July 2025 is not a flat discount. Six rows say “50%”. Eleven say a rupee figure — and that figure is always the exact statutory minimum the Act prescribes, never half. Seventeen rows, no exceptions. Where Parliament wrote “may extend to” the state halved it; where Parliament wrote “not less than” the state stopped dead at the floor. We reproduce all seventeen. Also: what the annexure leaves out — helmet, seat belt, insurance, licence, overloading — the notified speed limits under s.112, and a scheme that names no power and carries no legible date.
ReadThree states have now printed a composition rate in their own rules, and all three measure delay differently. Karnataka counts months. Tamil Nadu uses bands of days. Uttarakhand counts weeks — and sets the rate by what you drive. Rule 45: one rupee a week for an invalid carriage, five for a motor cycle, fifty for everything else — and a proviso capping the lot at ₹100. So a lorry hits the ceiling in a fortnight and an invalid carriage takes two years. Unlike Tamil Nadu, transport vehicles are in. Also here: the first appeal fee printed anywhere in eleven states (₹20 and ₹25), the Deputy Transport Commissioner (legal and tribunal), and a year in which challans rose 118.77% while collections rose 37.07%.
ReadTen states in, and this is the one that is open about exactly one half of itself. Tamil Nadu publishes no compounding amounts for road offences and no officer schedule — and then prints four composition rates inside its own rules, which almost nobody is ever shown. Rules 98, 105-A, 109 and 113: a late registration, a transfer not reported, a new registration mark, a change of address. ₹40 up to thirty days, ₹75 to sixty, ₹100 after — and ₹150 in the top slab of rule 113 alone. Each rule says the money is taken in lieu of any action under section 177, which no other state spells out. Also here: the enabling clause cites a section 311 that does not exist in the Act, rule 98 quietly leaves transport vehicles out, the founding notification carries no date, and section 200 is absent for the seventh time in seven tests.
ReadNine states in, the range has turned out to be enormous — and Gujarat sits at the bottom of it. Chief Minister Vijay Rupani announced the cuts on 10 September 2019: triple riding at ₹100, where West Bengal takes ₹1,000 and three months of your licence. Helmet and seat belt ₹500. A pollution offence ₹1,000, where Bengal takes ₹10,000 with a disqualification. Ten times, for the same words in the same Act. Then on 4 December 2019 the Transport Minister announced helmets would be optional except on highways and panchayat roads — we print what was said, flag that we could not find the notification, and say plainly that this is no reason to ride without one. Also here: rule 107, the first appeal procedure we have been able to read in nine states, and rule 98A’s thirty-day grievance clock for app aggregators.
ReadTwo things, and the first one saves money today. Rules 37 and 45 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules still compose a late registration renewal and a late transfer intimation at twenty-five rupees a calendar month, capped at one hundred rupees — figures written in 1989 and never updated, and the two lapses vehicle owners get caught by most. We quote both rules in full. The second thing is bigger: Karnataka is where somebody asked out loud whether a state may cut a traffic fine. The Centre said yes on 11 September 2019, Karnataka took legal opinion, cut on 21 September, and the Centre then said states had no authority at all. Both were right about different things — a state cannot touch the fine a court imposes, but section 200 gives it the compounding amount. That distinction is the key to every other state page on this site, and this is where it surfaced.
ReadEvery state publishes what you can pay. Maharashtra is the only one that also published what you cannot — a list of nine non-compoundable offences. Two of them are things your neighbours let you settle for money: driving without a permit (₹10,000 in both Jharkhand and West Bengal) and overloading (₹20,000 plus ₹2,000 a tonne in Jharkhand). Here there is no amount at all — a court decides, both the driver and the owner are charged, and a repeat permit offence carries a minimum three-month sentence. The same document shows a Police Constable as the compounding authority for about 95 of 104 offences, the lowest rank floor of any state we have examined and the exact opposite of Bengal. Its money is from 2016 and stale, it is still sitting on a government server, and we say so.
ReadFive states in, every page had a hole — Haryana told us who may issue a challan but never what it costs, Jharkhand the reverse. Bengal prints both halves in one notification. Schedule I names who may compound, and for oversized vehicles under section 182B that is the Director of Transport alone, one officer for the whole state. Schedule II runs to twenty-six rows and six columns, because Bengal is the only state that prints the section you broke and the section you are charged under separately — which makes a challan testable on its face. We reproduce both schedules. Then overloading, which is deliberately left out: it runs on its own notification that suspends the permit on a second offence and cancels it on a third, with the registration suspended behind it. Also: a ₹10,000 figure where Jharkhand charges ₹1,000, three rows where a licence disqualification rides along with the payment, a rule 349 that may crack our five-state pattern, and a police page still quoting superseded notifications.
ReadA District Transport Officer in Patna wrote that traffic challans could not be taken up at a National Lok Adalat. Somebody took that letter to the High Court — and fourteen months later the State had notified a scheme letting old e-challans be closed at fifty per cent, with the Chief Justice directing where the counters should stand and that no money be taken in cash. This page traces the whole sequence from Rani @ Rani Tiwari v. State of Bihar to Notification No. 3261 of 30 April 2026, sets out exactly which offences the scheme covers — and the one it leaves out, which is overloading, the most expensive offence in the Act. Also: why the Lok Adalat did not reduce anything, a correction to our own earlier pages, section 200 missing for the fifth state running, and the Supreme Court order pulling from the other end.
ReadThree state pages in we had to keep telling readers the amounts could not be printed, because the document fixing them was unreachable or a photograph. Jharkhand broke that. Its Transport Department memo Pari. Ayu.-192/2016 carries a five-column schedule — section, offence, penalty before 1 September 2019, penalty after, and the compounding fee — and we reproduce all twenty-five rows. Then the harder half: section 185 and a dozen others are not in it at all, section 194A has an empty compounding cell, and a second speeding offence carries a licence impoundment instead of a sum. Also here: three rows whose penalty columns appear transposed, the three-month deferral of September 2019, the state rules of 2001 that will not open, a Delhi address printed on the state enforcement page, and the Supreme Court order of 28 September 2026 that turns an unpaid challan into a blocked registration.
ReadAcross three state pages we kept asking the same question — who is actually allowed to stop you and write this — and Haryana is the first state that answers it. Rule 225 of its 1993 rules, substituted in 2021, appoints seventeen categories of officer and lists the sections each may challan under. We reproduce the whole schedule. The police floor is an ASI, their list is shorter than the transport list, and overloading under section 194 does not appear against the police at all — it is transport department work. Two provisos matter: five officers cannot touch private buses, and police powers widen outside municipal limits. Section 200 is missing from the enabling provisions for the third state running, so the amounts come from a notification we could not find — and we say so rather than copying a rate list.
ReadOur second state page, and the finding at the top of it is one the High Court only said out loud in August 2026: Uttar Pradesh has no separate traffic police cadre, and the Bench asked the government to decide on creating one. The state’s own rules contain no compounding provision — section 200 is not even among their enabling sections — so the amount comes from a notification, dated June 2020, and the schedule everybody quotes online is older than the 2019 amendment. An appeal in a licensing matter goes to the Deputy Transport Commissioner of the Zone, not the RTO. Plus the High Court’s own Payment Setu portal across 74 district courts, the school-vehicle chapter nobody mentions, number portability, and why this page carries no compounding figures.
ReadA stay order is not a thing you can go and collect. It is an order made inside a suit, which is why the document that has to exist first is the plaint and not the application. The Supreme Court set three requirements, and most applications die on the third: irreparable injury means an injury that money at the end of the case cannot adequately repair — so “I will lose money” is usually not enough. Before any of that there is a gate: section 41 of the Specific Relief Act lists eleven situations where an injunction cannot be granted at all, including stopping a criminal proceeding, and one added in 2018 for infrastructure projects. Also the ex parte order and the thirty days in Rule 3A that people mistake for a result, what happens to somebody who breaks an injunction, and the appeal that runs both ways.
ReadAlmost nobody reading this chose arbitration. It was in the loan agreement, the builder agreement, the insurance policy — a clause nobody negotiated. So the first question is not how arbitration works; it is whether that clause can be used the way the other side says. On the two commonest versions the Supreme Court has said no. A party interested in the outcome cannot alone appoint the arbitrator (2019), and a Constitution Bench held in November 2024 that unilateral appointment clauses in public-private contracts violate Article 14. And if you are a consumer, the clause does not shut the consumer forum. Plus the twelve-plus-six month clock, the grounds for setting an award aside in the statute’s own words, the 2025 ruling on when a court may modify one, and why filing a challenge no longer freezes the award.
ReadThe one rule a court applies against you even if the other side never mentions it. Section 3 says a late suit shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence, so hoping nobody notices is not a plan. We set out how the Schedule really works — and why the third column, saying when time starts, decides more than the number of years does. What restarts the clock (a signed acknowledgement, a recorded part payment) and the condition both carry. Why delay can be condoned in an appeal but never in a suit. The Covid exclusion of 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022, still worth nearly two years and still forgotten. And section 27, where losing the period does not just bar the suit — it extinguishes the ownership.
ReadEvery page on this subject opens by saying mediation is voluntary. That is true of one of the three mediations you can end up in. Before a commercial suit it is compulsory, and the Supreme Court has treated compliance as jurisdictional — skip it and the plaint is liable to be rejected. And a court can refer you without your consent at all, unlike arbitration. We also did the thing nobody seems to have done: checked how much of the Mediation Act 2023 is actually in force. The commencement notification we could find switched on the regulator and the rule-making power — not pre-litigation mediation, not confidentiality, not enforcement. Plus the section 12A judgments from 2022 to October 2025, what is privileged, and the four grounds on which a settlement can be undone.
ReadTwenty pages on this site mention it and none of them explained it, so here it is from the only angle that matters: the point of view of the person being asked to sign. A Lok Adalat cannot decide anything — the Supreme Court said so in 2008 — it only records what you agree to. And section 21(2) makes that record a civil decree against which no appeal lies to any court. Not a suit to set it aside, and not objections in execution: the Supreme Court shut both doors in November 2025, in a case where a man lost a property he had bought for four crore rupees through an award he was never party to. Also what can and cannot be referred, the divorce line nobody reconciles, the court fee refund, why the traffic challan discount has no instrument behind it, and the Permanent Lok Adalat, which can decide against you.
ReadThe words are not interchangeable in India and the difference has consequences. Who may appear for you, where notaries, legal consultants, document writers and “case managers” fit, and how to spot somebody who is not entitled to practise.
ReadA three-question test that does not depend on how frightened you are, an honest list of when the answer is no, what the Advocates Act actually restricts, why a power-of-attorney holder cannot argue your case, and who is entitled to free legal aid.
ReadHow to verify that somebody is really enrolled, why specialisation by forum beats seniority, the Bar Council rules that protect you before you sign anything, the conflict question to ask on day one, and the question almost nobody asks.
ReadWhy no honest Indian site publishes an advocate’s fee, the fee structures actually used, why “no win no fee” is not permitted here, what is a fee and what is an expense, and how to agree it so there is no argument later.
ReadWhat to take, in what order, what to say about the facts that hurt you, what a vakalatnama actually does and how long it lasts, what to write down before you leave, and what should happen in the first week afterwards.
ReadWritten for both sides. Why a single line at three thousand five hundred rupees decides which of two separate systems your tenancy is in, the closed list of grounds under Section 14, the first-default protection most tenants never hear about, the summary procedure under Section 25B that is lost by doing nothing, notice under Section 106, and why changing the locks is the worst thing a landlord can do.
ReadThree different suits wear one name. Whether you are asking for a share, for possession, or for a document to be undone — and why each has a different clock. Self-acquired against coparcenary, a daughter’s right by birth, why a mutation entry is not ownership, why GPA and will papers are not a conveyance, and the two decrees a partition suit ends in.
ReadOne “no” at the counter is not where the law ends. The three doors, in the order the law gives them — the police station, the DCP under Section 173(4), the Magistrate under Section 175(3) with its new affidavit condition — plus the complaint case where the accused is now heard first, and why the officer refusing you is sometimes right.
ReadThe distinction everything rests on, and why it is decided on the medical record by another doctor rather than by how bad the outcome was. Why the complete record is the first step and must be obtained before you complain, consent as a separate and often stronger ground, and the three roads — compensation, prosecution and professional discipline — of which only one pays.
ReadThe one law that can take back property you already signed away. Section 23 and what Urmila Dixit (2025) settled about eviction and possession, the Maintenance Tribunal before a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the ceiling on the monthly amount and the route that has none, whether you may actually bring a lawyer, and where a daughter-in-law’s right of residence fits.
ReadFees, transfer certificates, admission and expulsion — and why the door that opens is the Directorate of Education rather than a court. What the Delhi High Court held in May 2026 about a hike at the start of a session against one imposed mid-session, why a certificate cannot be held against your dues, and how to ask the regulator for something it can actually do.
ReadFive different papers, five different answers to “what if I do nothing”. A private legal notice against a civil summons, a criminal summons, a tribunal notice and a police notice; the thirty days that is directory and the hundred and twenty that is not; ex parte orders and the thirty days to undo one; and why complying with a Section 35(3) police notice now protects you.
ReadWhat a family does in the first twenty-four hours, and the two rights nobody will offer you: default bail under Section 187(3), which turns on sixty or ninety days rather than the merits and dies the day the chargesheet is filed, and release under Section 479 after half the maximum sentence — a third for a first-time accused. Plus sureties, conditions, and why a bail order is not release.
ReadSearch enrolled advocates by practice area, court, city, experience and language. Alphabetical, no rankings. Free to search and free to send a request.
Open the directoryTwo doors, both free. Clients search a factual directory of enrolled advocates. Advocates apply to be listed on it — no fee, no commission, nothing paid in either direction.
Search Bar Council enrolled advocates by what your matter is about, by court, or by city. Searching and sending a request are both free.
Enrolled advocates anywhere in India can apply to be listed. Your entry is published only after we verify your enrolment number with your State Bar Council.
Would rather not pick anybody? Tell us the matter instead — one form goes to every advocate at once, and the first to take it up calls you.
This directory carries no ratings, no reviews, no rankings and no fees — only the factual particulars the Bar Council of India permits, published at each advocate's own request. Browse the network · Terms for Advocates