In interim custody disputes, the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration. For children of tender age, the emotional bond and continuous care provided by the mother typically prevail over the father's financial stability or other claims.

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.02.2026 PASSED IN G AND WC NO. 2/2025 BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT SOMWERPET, KODAGU, REJECTING THE PETITIONERS APPLICATION NO.2 FILED UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT, 1890 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE VIDE ANNEXURE - A AS THE SAME IS WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND, ARBITRARY AND BAD IN THE EYES OF LAW AND ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

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

CAV ORDER

The present writ petition is filed seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 27.02.2026 passed in G & WC No.2/2025 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Somwarpet, Kodagu, (‘the Family Court’ for short) whereby I.A.No.2 filed under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking interim custody of the minor child came to be rejected.

The petitioner herein is the husband and the respondent herein is the wife.

The brief facts of the case are that:-

The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife, whose marriage was solemnised on 06.01.2021 at Tadepalligudem, Andhra Pradesh, in accordance with customary rites and rituals. Following the marriage, the parties resided together at BelurKasavanahalli, Somwarpet, Kodagu District, and it is stated that there was a mutual understanding that the petitioner’s parents would reside along with them in the matrimonial house.

Out of the wedlock, a male child was born on 09.01.2023 at Cloud Nine Hospital, Bellandur, Bengaluru, namely Mylavarapu Harihara Dharma Saasta. It is the case of the petitioner that on 24.01.2024, after celebrating the birthday of the minor child, the respondent was dropped at her parental home, and on 25.01.2024, upon his request due to illness, she returned to the matrimonial home along with the child. However, on 27.01.2024, the respondent left the matrimonial home along with the minor child without prior intimation, leaving behind a voice message, and has since been residing at her parental home.

It is further stated that the petitioner was thereafter denied access to the minor child, which constrained him to institute proceedings on 28.03.2025 under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 before the Principal District Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri in G & WC No.2/2025 seeking custody. In the said proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of the Act read with Section 151 CPC seeking interim custody. After issuance of notice on 26.04.2025, filing of objections by the respondent on 04.11.2025, and submission of written arguments on 07.02.2026, the Trial Court, by order dated 27.02.2026, rejected the said application.

The impugned order dated 27.02.2026 passed by the Trial Court in G & WC No.2/2025 discloses that, upon consideration of the material on record, the Court held that the paramount consideration is the welfare of the minor child and not the rights of the parents. The Family Court observed that the minor child, born on 09.01.2023, is of tender age and has been in the continuous custody of the mother since birth, thereby establishing emotional bonding and attachment, and is primarily dependent on her for day-to-day care. While taking note of the contentions raised by the petitioner, including allegations regarding financial capacity and lack of vaccination, the Trial Court held that such grounds were not sufficient to grant interim custody and that the mother is better suited to care for a child of such tender age. The Court further concluded that grant of interim custody would cause hardship to the minor child and the mother, and accordingly rejected the application filed under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read wit