THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
JAYANT BANERJI AND K. V. ARAVIND
MR ASIFULLA SHARIFF – Appellant
Versus
MRS RUKSAR BANU – Respondent
MFA 3674/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3674 OF 2023 (GW)
BETWEEN:
MR.ASIFULLA SHARIFF,
S/O KIFAYTHULLA SHARIF,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/O AGASAVALLI VILLAGE,
HAIHOLE ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI.J.D.KASHINATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MRS.RUKSAR BANU, D/O ANWAR PASHA,
Digitally
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
signed by K G
RENUKAMBA R/O NEAR BILAL MASJID,
1ST CROSS LEFT SIDE,
Location:
HIGH COU RT TIPPU NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA.
OF [
WARD: ARHAM SHARIFF,
KARNATAKA
S/O ASIFULLA SHARIFF,
AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NEAR BILAL MASJID,
1ST CROSS LEFT SIDE,
TIPPU NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.MALLAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.KAMARAJU, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.47(a) OF GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.06.2022 PASSED ON G AND WC NO.15/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 7, 10 AND
25 OF THE GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed seeking to challenge the judgment and decree dated 03.06.2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Shivamogga in G & WC No.15/2021. By means of the impugned judgment, the petition filed by the appellant/petitioner under Section 7, 10 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 seeking custody of his minor child, was dismissed.
3. Pursuant to the previous order of the Court the parties are present in person in the Court. The respondent has also come with their son namely Arhaam Shareeff. The parties have produced their respective Aadhar Cards and have also been identified by their respective advocates. The parties have acknowledged that they were husband and wife to each other prior to the Khula Nama of 2021. It is also admitted to the parties that Arhaam Shareeff, the minor child is the biological child of the parties, born from the wedlock.
4. After hearing the parties, the family Court had framed the following points for consideration.
POINTS
1. Whether petitioner proves that he is the father of minor ward by name Arhaam Shareef?
2. Whether petitioner made out grounds to allow the petition?
3. What order?
5. The answers of the Family Court to the said points are as under:
“Point No.1: In the negative. Point No.2: In the negative.
Point No.3: As per final order for the Following:”
6. As regards points No.1 to 3 the Family Court seems to have been under a misconception as to the name of the appellant/petitioner. When the admitted fact is that the name of the appellant is Asif Ulla Shariff, and the name of the former wife is Ruksar Banu and both have acknowledged each other in their presence today in Court, this aspect of the matter therefore, as dealt with by the trial Court, deserves no credence. It is admitted to the parties that the Khula Nama dated 31.10.2021 was obtained by the wife which brought to an end their marriage which was solemnised on 20.04.2017. It appears that in the examination-in-chief, the petitioner/appellant had stated that at the time of Khula Nama a condition was imposed that every month for 15 days, the custody of the minor ward would be with him and for 15 days, it would be in the custody of the respondent. It was only on that condition that he admitted to give Khula Nama in presence of the witnesses. The Court noted that the petitioner/appellant had not examined his blood related close sisters or witnesses to corroborate his case with regard to the condition imposed at the time of Khula Nama nor had he offered any explanation what restrained him to examine the said witnesses of blood related close sisters. Therefore, the Family Court had said that it canno
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.