IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 26823 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

SMT DIVYA K.C., W/O KARAN CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT 161, 6^TH CROSS, ST BED, 4^TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU -560 034 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRATHIMA S.K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

KARAN CHANDRASHEKAR S/O A.CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO. 480, 13^TH MAIN

3^RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU- 560 034 Digitally signed …RESPONDENT by MEGHA MOHAN (BY SRI. AZHAR ALI FAROOQI, ADVOCATE)

Location: H IGH COURT OF THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE KARNATAKA CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 05.01.2024 IN G AND WC NO. 137/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-J PASSED BY THE HONBLE V ADDL. PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT BENGALURU ON IA NO. 8 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SEC. 12 OF GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT 1890 R/W ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 SEC 151 OF CPC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.8 in G&WC.No.137/2023 dated 05.01.2024 by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the Family Court had allowed I.A.No.8 filed under Section 12 of G&WC Act read with Order 39 Rule 1, 2 and Section 151 of CPC and directed the mother not to take the children out of jurisdiction of the Court till disposal of the petition, the petitioner/mother is before this Court.

2. The parties are referred to as father and mother for the sake of convenience.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/mother submits that by way of impugned order, the Family Court had partly allowed I.A.No.5 filed by the father under Section 12 of G&WC Act read with Order 39 Rule 1, 2 and Section 151 of CPC and granted visitation rights to meet his children at Children Visiting Home, BMC, on every Thursday between 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. It is submitted that this Court had granted the visitation of the elder child from 10:00 a.m. on Saturday to 10 a.m. on Sunday and for the younger child, it is 10 a.m. to

02.00 p.m. on Saturday. It is submitted that the mother is complying with the order of the Court. It is submitted that because of this order, even for a short distance outside Bengaluru, she is not in a position to travel and in fact when she travelled to Nandi Hills, which is 70 kilometers away from Bengaluru, the father has issued a contempt notice to the mother. It is submitted that mother has no intention to take the children out of the jurisdiction or to deprive the father from visitation. But she as a human being also has a right to move around and by order impugned, she cannot be deprived of her fundamental rights just because a matter is pending before the Family Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/father submits that there are cases registered against the brother of the mother under the provisions of the POCSO Act for alleged act against his own daughter. It is submitted that the brother is staying in the very same house and it is not in the interest of the children and the children are not safe in that house. Earlier, mother has given an affidavit that he is not staying in the house and he has the photographs to show that he is holding the children. It is submitted that the children are not secured in that house and now if she is permitted to leave Bangalore, there would be interaction with the brother which is not in the interest of the children. It is submitted that the Family Court considering all these aspects had rightly directed the mother not to take the children out of jurisdiction of the Court. It is submitted that he has already filed an I.A. bringing all these facts about the brother staying in the house and having close access to the children and that I.A. is pending consideration before the Family Court. It is submitted that at this point of time, any modification to