Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24095
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. Manmadha Rao, J
ANJALI MENON – Appellant
Versus
ROSHAN ELIAS JOHN – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.35564 OF 2025 (GM-FC)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Arun Govindaraj
For the Respondents: Prateek Rath
The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in visitation matters. Supervisory courts will not interfere with discretionary interim orders of the Family Court unless they are perverse, arbitrary, or disregard settled child welfare principles.
Headnote:(A) Child Welfare - Visitation Rights - The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody and visitation matters, overriding all other considerations. (Para 15)
(B) Shared Parenting - Parental Access - Meaningful and, where appropriate, unsupervised interaction with both parents is essential for the emotional and psychological development of the child. (Para 13, 16)
(C) Supervisory Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 - Interference with discretionary orders of the Family Court regarding interim custody or visitation is warranted only if the order is perverse, arbitrary, or disregards settled principles governing child welfare. (Para 17)
Issues: Whether the Family Court's order granting unsupervised visitation to the father was arbitrary or detrimental to the welfare of the minor child.
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU IN M.C. NO. 2004/2023, ON THE PETITIONERS INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6, UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 AND SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 READ WITH SECTION 38 OF THE SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT, 1954, IN SO FAR AS IT GRANTS THE RESPONDENT UNSUPERVISED VISITATION RIGHTS OF THE MINOR CHILD- AMARA AND CONSEQUENTLY PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO BE PRESENT AT THE TIME OF VISITATION ANNEXURE-G.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.03.2026 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 to quash the order dated 27.09.2025 passed by the learned VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru (‘the Family Court’ for short) in M.C.No.2004/2023 on I.A.No.6 filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 38 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, insofar as it grants unsupervised visitation rights to the respondent in respect of the minor child, and for a consequential direction permitting the petitioner to remain present during such visitation.
The petitioner herein/mother is the respondent before the family Court and the respondent herein/father is the petitioner before the Family Court.
For convenience of reference, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed before this Court.
The brief facts of the case are that:
The petitioner/mother and the respondent/father were married on 18.05.2015 at St. Mary’s Cathedral Church, Bengaluru, in accordance with Christian customs and traditions, and the said marriage was subsequently registered under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The parties established their matrimonial home at Bengaluru and out of the wedlock, a female child, namely Amara, was born on 08.12.2020, who is presently aged about four years. It is the case of the petitioner that the marital relationship deteriorated over time owing to the conduct of the respondent and his family members, and that she was subjected to physical, verbal, emotional, mental and financial abuse, and was abandoned along with the minor child in November 2022.
It is further stated that the respondent/father instituted proceedings in M.C.No.2004/2023 before the Family Court seeking dissolution of marriage, to which the petitioner filed her counterclaim. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the respondent/father filed I.A.No.3 on 02.04.2024 under Section 38 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 seeking interim custody and visitation rights. On the same day, the Family Court granted visitation rights to the respondent from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on alternate Sundays under the supervision of the petitioner/mother, along with video call access for 15 minutes every Saturday between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Thereafter, the petitioner/mother filed I.A.No.4 on 05.08.2024 seeking maintenance, which remains pending. Subsequently, by order dated 14.10.2024, the visitation timing was modified to 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. at Gopalan Mall in the presence of the petitioner. On 03.02.2025, arguments were addressed on I.A.No.3 and it was recorded that both parties agreed for continuation of the arrangement as per order dated 02.04.2024, and the matter was posted for orders on 03.03.2025.
However, on 03.03.2025, the Family Court partly allowed I.A.No.3 and granted visitation to the respondent with the minor child on every second and fourth Sunday from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed I.A.No.6 on 24.03.2025 seeking review of the said order. In the interregnum, the respondent/father filed W.P.No.12277/2025 before this Court challenging
