SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 440629

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
SIDDHARTH CHHOTTRAY – Appellant
Versus
AKANKSHA MOHANTY – Respondent
WP 38048/2025



##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:54616

WP No. 38048 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

WRIT PETITION NO. 38048 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

SIDDHARTH CHHOTTRAY

S/O SOUMYAKANTA CHTTOTTRAY,

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

TOWER 6,

FLAT NO.61002,

NIKOO HOMES 1,

Digitally signed

by MEGHA

THANISANDRA,

MOHAN

Location: HI GH

COURT OF

KARNATAKA BENGALURU- 560 064

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ABHILASH RAJU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

AKANKSHA MOHANTY

W/O SIDDHARTH CHHOTTRAY,

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:54616

WP No. 38048 of 2025

HC-KAR

G1, MANIPAL VISTAS APARTMENTS,

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

VASANTH NAGAR,

BENGALURU- 560 051

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. ARUN GOVINDARAJ, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

ORDER DATED 12.12.2025 (ANNEXURE- A) PASSED IN G

AND WC NO. 50/2025 BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY

COURT, BENGALURU AND DISMISS I.A. NO.6 (ANNEXURE-

D) WITH COSTS, AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS

DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:54616

WP No. 38048 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.6 dated

12.12.2025 in G and WC.No.50/2025 by the Principal Judge,

Family Court, Bengaluru, the petitioner-father is before this

Court.

2. The Family Court has allowed I.A.No.6 and permitted

the respondent to apply for and complete all formalities relating

to issuance of U.S tourist visa for the minor child unilaterally

and without the consent and signature of the father. However

to balance the interest of the father, apart from the fact that

there is already an order restraining the mother from taking the

child abroad, to ensure compliance with the same order,

I.A.No.7 was also allowed and as soon as the respondent

receives the passport of the child, the mother was directed to

deposit the passport before the Family Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

that when there is an order directing the mother not to leave

the country without the permission of the Court, the mother

could not have made an application for the U.S visa whether it

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:54616

WP No. 38048 of 2025

HC-KAR

is a tourist visa or otherwise. It is submitted that if once the

visa is granted for 10 years and if she leaves the country, the

father will not be in a position to get them back.. It is

submitted that the Family Court ought not to have permitted

the mother to apply for the visa unilaterally.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-mother

submits that the mother has no intention to travel. She is

having the U.S visa and she had applied for the son also. It is

submitted that already part of the formalities were completed.

It is also undertaken that immediately after all the formalities,

the passport will be deposited before the Family Court. The

apprehensions that are raised by the petitioner are without any

basis. It is submitted that balancing the interests of both the

parties, the Family Court had passed a reasoned order and

there are no grounds to interfere with the order impugned.

5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side,

perused the material on record. There is an order restraining

the mother from taking the child out of the country without the

permission of the Court and after that order was passed, there

was no necessity for the mother to make an application for this

##PAGE5##

- 5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:54616

WP No. 38048 of 2025

HC-KAR

visa. However, the Family Court balancing the interest of the

father had passed an order directing the mother to deposit the

passport immediately. In those circumstances, this Court do

not find any reason to interfere with the order of passed by the

Family Court.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

All IA’s in the writ petition shall stand closed.

SD/-

(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)

JUDGE

RJ

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top