An interlocutory order in guardianship proceedings cannot completely deny a natural mother access to her minor child unless prima facie unfitness or imminent risk is demonstrated, as such exclusion is detrimental to the child's developmental welfare and risks parental alienation.

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12/01/2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT SITTING AT DEVANAHALLI IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING G AND WC NO. 15010 OF 2025 WHICH HAD DISMISSAL IA NO. V FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN (ANNX-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY, TO ALLOW IA NO. V FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN.

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE COMMON ORDER DATED 12.01.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT SITTING AT DEVANAHALLI IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING G AND W.C. NO. 15010 OF 2025 WHICH HAD ALLOWED I.A. NO. III FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS.

THESE PETITIONS 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 W.P.No.5971/2026 is filed challenging the order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, sitting at Devanahalli (‘the Family Court’ for short), in G & W.C.No.15010/2025, whereby I.A.No.5 filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the said order and consequently to allow I.A.No.5.

The W.P.No.4443/2026 is filed to issue writ of certiorari and quash the impugned order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, sitting at Devanahalli (‘the Family Court’ for short), in G & W.C.No.15010/2025, whereby I.A.No.III filed by the respondents herein came to be allowed.

2. The petitioner herein/mother is the respondent before the family Court and the respondents herein are the petitioners before the Family Court.

3. The petitioner herein is the mother of the minor child and the respondent No.1 herein is the grand mother and respondent No.2 is the Aunt of the minor child.

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

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

The petitioner is the wife of late Mr. Amit Mono Banerji. Their marriage was solemnized on 29.03.2009 at Mumbai as per Hindu rites and customs and was registered on 03.07.2010 under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Out of the wedlock, a daughter, namely Ms. Riya Banerji, was born on 20.06.2012. The petitioner asserts that she is the natural guardian of the minor child under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The respondent No.1 is the mother of the deceased and respondent No.2 is the sister of the deceased.

6. After the marriage, the petitioner and her husband commenced their matrimonial life at rented premises at Meenakshi Residency, Arekere, Bengaluru, and thereafter resided at various rented accommodations in Bengaluru. At the time of marriage, the deceased was employed as a Senior Corporate Executive with Accenture (India), Bengaluru. In October 2011, respondent No.1 shifted from Delhi to Bengaluru and, according to the petitioner, continuously interfered in the marital life of the couple, even after the birth of the minor child in June 2012.

7. It is stated that the deceased ventured into business from the year 2014 by co-founding Aperon Realty Private Limited with one Mr. Vikas Katoch, and in 2015 started Purpleyo Technologies Private Limited with one Mr. Karan Chopra. Both ventures failed. I