Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 20979
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K. Manmadha Rao, J
Vasuki Murali – Appellant
Versus
Pramod Sridhar – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.5629 OF 2026|WRIT PETITION NO.5878 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Susheela, Shirish Krishna
For the Respondents: Gowtham Raghunath
In child custody matters, the welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration, and appellate courts will not interfere with discretionary visitation/injunction orders of Family Courts unless they demonstrate patent perversity, jurisdictional error, or manifest illegality.
Headnote:(A) Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Section 17 - Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 10 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, and 4 - Mediation Act, 2023 - Section 22 - Child custody and visitation rights - Interim injunction against custody interference - Suppression of material facts regarding pre-litigation mediation - Court held that disclosure of the factum of mediation does not violate the statutory confidentiality regarding the substance of discussions.
(B) Welfare of the minor child being paramount, the court must balance the right of the non-custodial parent to access the child with the need for stability in the child's environment.
(C) Appellate courts exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution shall not interfere with discretionary interim orders of Family Courts unless there is patent perversity, jurisdictional error, or manifest illegality. (Paras 25, 28, 35)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner (mother) sought an injunction to prevent the respondent (father) from removing their minor child from her custody. The Family Court initially granted an ex parte injunction, but later vacated it, citing the petitioner's suppression of prior mediation proceedings and existing visitation arrangements. Additionally, the Family Court granted the respondent structured visitation rights, including overnight stays and vacation custody.
Findings of Court:
The Family Court did not err in vacating the injunction as the suppression of material facts impacts a party's request for equitable relief. The visitation order is well-balanced, providing for gradual and structured access, which does not disrupt the minor’s well-being and is supported by a brief positive interaction between the father and the child.
Issues: Whether the Family Court’s decision to vacate the interim injunction and grant structured visitation rights to the non-custodial parent was perverse, and whether the non-disclosure of mediation proceedings warrants vacating an equitable injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. Courts may reject equitable relief if a party suppresses relevant facts, such as pre-litigation proceedings, when seeking injunctive orders. Visitation arrangements should be phased, child-sensitive, and aim to foster the parent-child bond without disrupting the minor's settled custody.
Result: Writ Petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of procedural history and factual background of the custody disputes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 2. arguments regarding child custody welfare and pre-litigation mediation disclosure. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 3. court's discretion in interim injunctions and mediation confidentiality mandates. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 4. principles for balanced visitation rights and non-interference in discretionary orders. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.02.2026 PASSED ON I.A. NO. II AND I.A. NO. VI IN G AND WC NO.477/2025 BY THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A HERETO AND QUASHING, ALLOW I.A. NO. II (ANNEXURE-C) FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN G AND WC NO. 477/2025 UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC R/W SECTION 10 OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984, BY GRANTING TEMPORARY INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENT, HIS FAMILY MEMBERS, AGENTS, SERVANTS OR ANY PERSONS CLAIMING UNDER HIM FROWN IN ANY WITH TAKING AWAY THE CUSTODY OF TREE MISS DHETTE FROM THE PETITIONER. PENDING DISPOSAL OF G AND WC NO. 477/2025.
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.02.2026 PASSED IN I.A. NO. IV AND I.A. NO.V IN G AND WC NO.477/2025 BY THE COURT OF THE 1 ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A HERETO AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS 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 W.P. No.5629/2026 is directed against the order passed on I.A.No.II and I.A.No.VI, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking temporary injunction came to be rejected and the application filed by the respondent under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC came to be allowed, resulting in vacation of the ex parte injunction granted on 08.12.2025.
The W.P.No.5878/2026 is directed against the order passed on I.A.No.IV and I.A.No.V, whereby the Family Court has granted visitation rights to the respondent–father, including overnight visitation, video call access and interim custody during school vacations.
2. Since both writ petitions arise out of the same proceedings and concern the custody and welfare of the same minor child, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
3. The petitioner herein is the mother and the respondent herein is the father of the minor child. They were arrayed as petitioner and respondent respectively before the Family Court.
4. The brief facts of the case are that:– The petitioner-mother and the respondent-father are legally wedded wife and husband. Their marriage was solemnized on 03.08.2014 at Bengaluru. The parties resided predominantly abroad, including in Dubai, UAE. Out of their wedlock, minor daughter Dhriti was born on 19.05.2020. From the time of the child’s birth, the petitioner has been the primary and continuous caregiver, solely responsible for her day-to-day care, upbringing and development of the child.
5. During the subsistence of the marriage, the respondent was stated to have exhibited a pattern of volatile and abusive behaviour, including repeated instances of physical violence, verbal abuse, reckless conduct and habitual intoxication. Incidents between 2016 and 2017, including an assault in Muscat, Oman, have been specifically pleaded. It is further averred that the respondent subjected the minor child to harsh and disproportionate punitive measures at a tender age, including physical striking and confinement and engaged in conduct such as reckless driving and repeated statements to the child suggesting that the petitioner would
