In exercising supervisory jurisdiction over interim custody orders, a High Court will typically decline to grant enhanced visitation reliefs not originally sought before the lower court, instead granting liberty to move the Family Court for such modifications where the child's welfare remains the paramount consideration.

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DATED 06/06/2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, IN THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS IA NO. 6 IN G AND WC. NO. 115 /2023 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE –A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 17.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

CAV ORDER

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 06.06.2025 passed on I.A.No.6 in G & WC No.115/2023 by the Court of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District at Bengaluru (‘the Family Court’ for short), whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 10 of the Family Courts Act and Section 151 of CPC, seeking interim custody of the minor child, came to be partly allowed.

2. The petitioner-husband/respondent-wife herein is the petitioner/respondent before the Family Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that:-

The petitioner and the respondent are the husband and wife and are parties to G & WC No.115/2023. Out of their wedlock, minor son, Master Ankit, was born on 21.10.2014 and is presently aged about 11 years. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent left the matrimonial home in August 2020 and shifted to her mother’s residence along with the minor child without any justifiable cause. It is further stated that despite efforts made by the petitioner between August 2020 and December 2020 to bring about reconciliation, the respondent remained unwilling, particularly when petitioner failed to migrate to Sweden and provide high standard of life to European standards to which the petitioner declined and resulted in filing of G & WC petition.

4. The petitioner, who is employed as a Principal Electrical Design Engineer at INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES, Bangalore, earning more than Rs.1,50,000/- per month, asserts that he has continued to provide financial support by arranging rental accommodation, paying rent, and meeting all expenses of the respondent and the child. It is alleged that despite such support, the respondent restricted access to the child and demanded monies even for limited visitation. It is also stated that the respondent travelled to Dubai in February 2021 along with the child when the child was aged about 7 years, and certain allegations have been made regarding her association with one Mr. Sandeep Nair. It is further stated that the respondent has strained relations with her own mother and sister.

5. It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent shifted residence again, for which he arranged alternate accommodation and admitted the child to Ebenezer International School in Kerala by bearing all expenses. Despite the same, the petitioner was allegedly denied access to the child both at the residence and at the school. The respondent, though having entered appearance through counsel, who is also representing her in M.C.No.355/2020, has not filed objections either to the main petition or to any interlocutory applications.

6. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1 on 21.12.2023 seeking visitation rights, on which no orders have been passed till date. On the same day, I.A.No.2 was filed seeking to restrain the respondent from removing the child from the jurisdiction of the Court, and the Family Court, by order dated 19.10.2024, granted such restraint. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.6 on 04.01.2025 seeking interim custody of the minor child. It is not in dispute that the respond