Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 23780
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. Manmadha Rao, J
MR RAGHAVENDRA M R – Appellant
Versus
MRS VINAYASHRI M – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.4605 OF 2024 (GM-FC)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vikram Varadakumar, Vijayalakshmi, B.V. Vidyulatha
For the Respondents:
In child custody disputes, the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. Interim orders are discretionary, and supervisory courts will not interfere unless there is patent illegality or perversity, especially when the Family Court aims to maintain the children's stability.
Headnote:(A) Child Custody - Welfare of the Child - Paramount Consideration - In determining custody, the welfare of the minor children, including their comfort, health, education, and overall well-being, is the paramount consideration, overriding the competing rights of the parents. (Para 9, 14)
(B) Supervisory Jurisdiction - Interim Orders - Discretionary Nature - Orders passed on interim applications in custody matters are discretionary; the High Court, in its supervisory jurisdiction, will interfere only if the order suffers from patent illegality or perversity. (Para 12)
(C) Interim Custody - Family Court Discretion - Denial of interim custody during vacations and holidays based on serious allegations between parties and the need to maintain existing arrangements is not arbitrary or unreasonable. (Para 13, 14, 15)
Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere with the Family Court's discretionary order denying interim custody of minor children during holidays and vacations while granting limited visitation rights.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of matrimonial dispute and the family court's interim order on visitation and custody. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments for interim custody based on the paramountcy of child welfare and child's preference. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. the discretionary nature of interim custody orders and the limited scope of supervisory interference. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. upholding the family court's decision to maintain existing arrangements for the children's stability. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 15.07.2022 PASSED ON THE INTERIM APPLICATION FILED U/S 12 OF THE G AND WC ACT R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC IN G AND WC NO.227/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHITRADURGA IN SO FAR AS NOT GRANTING THE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD FROM SATURDAY MORNING TO MONDAY MORNING OF EVERY WEEKEND, ON EVERY GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL HOLIDAY, DURING SUMMER AND WINTER VACATIONS BY GETTING THE CHILDREN FROM CHITRADURGA TO BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 27.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CAV ORDER
The present petition is filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 15.07.2022 passed on an interim application under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in G & WC No.227/2018 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chitradurga (‘the Family Court’ for short), insofar as it declines to grant custody of the minor children to the petitioner on weekends, Government and school holidays, and during summer and winter vacations by permitting them to be taken from Chitradurga to Bengaluru.
2. The petitioner/father herein and the respondent herein/mother are the petitioner and respondent before the Family Court respectively.
3. The brief facts of the case are that:-
The respondent is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and their marriage was solemnized on 09.05.2007 at Radhakrishna Convention Hall, Kalyana Mantapa, Bengaluru, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Out of their wedlock, a son, Aneesh Meda, was born on 16.09.2009 and a daughter, Vedika Varsha Meda, was born on 05.04.2013. It is the case of the petitioner that while the children were studying in 4th Standard and UKG respectively at Baldwin Institutions, Bengaluru, in February 2018, the respondent left the matrimonial home along with the minor children, discontinued their schooling during the academic year and shifted to Chitradurga. The petitioner initially lodged a complaint before Jnanabharathi Police Station on 24.02.2018 and, upon insistence, submitted a further complaint on 13.03.2018, which came to be registered as NCR No.125/2018. In her reply dated 15.03.2018, the respondent stated that she had voluntarily left the matrimonial home.
4. It is further the case of the petitioner/father that he had sold his property and paid a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- to the respondent/mother for commencing a business in steel and cement under the name and style Pallavi Steel and Cement Traders, and that the respondent was managing the financial affairs of both the business and the household. According to the petitioner, the parties were leading a cordial marital life until February 2018, when the respondent left for her parental home at Chitradurga along with the children and did not return despite efforts made by the petitioner and his family members.
5. The respondent thereafter lodged a complaint in Crime No.39/2018 before the Women Police Station, Chitradurga, alleging offences under Sections 498-A , 504, 506, 448, 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 which culminated in C.C.No.349/2019. The said proceedings, insofar as the parents and sister of the petitioner are concerned, were quashe
