Unilateral relocation of a minor child in violation of a binding consent decree requiring mutual consent for education is contrary to shared parental responsibility; such actions do not warrant interference unless a clear prima facie comparative advantage for the child's welfare is established.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 18.03.2026 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 by the petitioner-mother calling in question the impugned order dated 11.12.2025 passed in I.A.No.1 in G & WC No.101/2025 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Family Court’), and seeking a direction to permit the minor child to continue to reside with her at Bengaluru during the pendency of the proceedings.

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

3. For convenience of reference, the parties herein are referred as per their rankings before this Court.

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

The petitioner is the mother and natural guardian of the minor child, Master Vedant Parthasarthy, aged about 9½ years, who has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), requiring continuous structured therapies, remedial education and a stable and supportive environment. It is stated that the petitioner is employed as a Web Developer at Mphasis, Bengaluru, and is residing with her elderly parents, who are dependent upon her. It is further stated that the minor child has been residing with the petitioner at Bengaluru and is undergoing occupational therapy, speech therapy, behavioural interventions and remedial education suited to his condition.

5. The petitioner asserts that the child has been admitted to a special-needs-friendly school in Bengaluru and that the requisite fees have been paid, ensuring continuity of education and therapeutic intervention. It is further stated that she has been bearing all expenses relating to the minor child, including medical, therapeutic and educational expenses, and has produced bills and receipts for the period from 2019 to 2023. It is also alleged that the respondent has a history of physical violence, supported by FIR, medical records and photographs.

6. The Family Court, upon consideration of the pleadings, framed the point as to whether the petitioner therein had made out grounds for restoration of educational continuity and temporary custody. By order dated 11.12.2025, the said point was answered partly in the affirmative. The Family Court observed that the marriage between the parties stood dissolved by consent decree dated 07.06.2023 and that the minor child was in the custody of the mother subject to joint decision-making regarding education and medical matters. It was further held that the mother had removed the child from Pune and started residing in to Bengaluru without consulting the father and in violation of the settlement terms. The Family Court also observed that the allegations of cruelty and counter-allegations require trial and cannot be adjudicated at the interim stage.

7. The Family Court further held that the documents produced by the mother did not establish any superior educational or medical advantage in Bengaluru and that the relocation lacked cogent justification, thereby affecting the welfare of the minor child. Accordingly, exercisin