IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 18686 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

NAVEEN KISHOR H., S/O HANUMANTHA NAYAK AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O NO IYNANAHALLI CHIKKAJAJURU POST, HOLALKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577 526 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

BAGIBAI D.R., D/O LATE RAMANAIKA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, Digitally R/O SADANA NILAYA signed by GIRINAGARA HOSABADAVANE SUVARN A T RAMANAHALLI CHIKKAMAGALURU TOWN -577 101 Location:

…RESPONDENT HIGH COURT OF (BY SRI. M.VINAYA KEERTHY, ADVOCATE)

KARNATAKA THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT MYSURU COMMON ORDER PASSED ON IA NO. 15 AND IA NO. 27 DATED 13/03/2024 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND FURTHER PLEASE TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO BRING THE 2ND CHILD MASTER ARVIN TO CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY INSTEAD OF MYSURU DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY ACCOMMODATE TO MEET THE PETITIONER.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 08.07.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

CAV ORDER

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.Nos.XV and XXVII in MC.No.284/2021 dated 13.03.2024 by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, whereby the Family Court had permitted the father and the grandparents to exercise visitation at Mysuru, the petitioner/father is before this Court.

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

3. It is the case of the father that the father is working in Davanagere and the mother is working in Chikkamagaluru. For exercising visitation, the father has to go to Mysuru which is 250 kilometres away. Initially, the father had filed MC.No.284/2021 seeking divorce before the Family Court at Mysuru and the mother had raised an objection that as she is residing in Chikkamagaluru, the petition filed before the Family Court at Mysuru is not maintainable. It is stated by the father that if the place of visitation is in between the place where the mother and the father are residing, preferably Hosadurga, it would be convenient for both the parties.

4. It is the case of the mother that considering the conduct of the father and the different cases that are registered and considering the threat to the father, the Family Court had directed the parties to have visitation at Mysuru. It is submitted that in the interest of the mother as well as the child, the father can exercise the visitation at Mysuru and the order passed by the Family Court is a well-considered order.

5. This Court by order dated 16.09.2025 had passed an order observing that the mother is working in Chikkamagalur and the father is working in Davanagere. The father has to travel 250 kilometers and the mother has to travel 160 kilometers to go to Mysuru to exercise visitation. This Court has taken note of the submission of the counsel for the mother and the apprehensions. As the visitation has to happen frequently, travelling 250 Kilometers or 160 kilometers and going to Mysuru is not in the interest of both the parties. Accordingly, this Court had directed that that the visitation shall be exercised as per the order of the Family Court at Hosaurga in the court premises as per the duration mentioned by the Family Court.

6. When the matter came up for hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the father is comfortable with the visitation and the same may be continued. The mother had filed I.A.No.1/2026 seeking modification of the interim order passed by this Court dated 16.09.2025 and 13.11.2025. In the affidavit, it is stated that out of three visitations, the father has only come for one visit and he was absent for two visiting days. It is stated that the mother is