The High Court held that factual findings regarding a 'communication gap' in child custody handover do not justify writ interference; however, the aggrieved parent may seek compensation for lost custody days through an application before the Family Court.

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING BY WRIT OF CERTIORARI ANNEXURE-A, ORDER DT.01-04-2026 PASSED IN G AND WC NO.165/2025 ON THE FILE OF 1ST ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU ON IA NO.6 SEEKING MODIFYING ORDER DT. 25-03-2026 PASSED ON IA NO.4, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner – father against the order dated 01.04.2026 passed on I.A.No.6 in G & WC No.165/2025 by the I Additional Family Court, Bengaluru (‘the Family Court’ for short), whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the CPC, seeking interim custody of the minor child, came to be allowed.

The brief facts of the case are that:-

The petitioner and the respondent are the parents of a minor child, Master Surya. Their matrimonial dispute led to proceedings in G & WC No.252/2021, wherein, by way of a compromise before the Lok Adalat on 18.08.2023, both parties agreed to share custody of the minor child during school vacations, with the petitioner–father being entitled to custody for half of the vacation period. Subsequently, alleging change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the minor child and non-compliance with the terms of the compromise by the respondent–mother, the petitioner instituted G & WC No.165/2025 seeking permanent custody of the child, which is presently pending before the Family Court, Bengaluru. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the petitioner filed I.A.No.4 on 16.03.2026 seeking interim custody of the minor child for the first half of the summer vacation, i.e., for 34 days from 25.03.2026 to 27.04.2026. The Family Court, by order dated 25.03.2026, allowed the application and granted custody of the child to the petitioner from 26.03.2026 to 27.04.2026, directing him to pick up the child from the respondent’s apartment complex.

According to the petitioner, despite the said order being pronounced in open court, the respondent failed to comply with the same on 26.03.2026 and refused to hand over custody on the ground that a certified copy of the order was not furnished. It is further alleged that the respondent prevented the petitioner from entering the apartment premises and thereby, frustrated the implementation of the court’s order. In view of the said non-compliance, the petitioner filed I.A.No.6 on 26.03.2026 seeking advancement of the matter and further directions to enforce the order passed on I.A.No.4, including grant of custody during the vacation period and directions to the respondent to co-operate.

The respondent filed objections contending that there was no deliberate disobedience of the court’s order and that she was willing to hand over the child, provided the petitioner came to her residence. Thereafter, by order dated 01.04.2026, the Family Court observed that there might have been a communication gap between the parties and modified the earlier order passed on I.A.No.4. The Court permitted the petitioner to pick up the child from the respondent’s apartment on 02.04.2026 at 09:00 a.m. and granted custody till 29.04.2026 at 07:00 p.m.

Pursuant to the modified order, the petitioner received custody of the child on 02.04.2026. However, it is the grievance of the petitioner that due to the respondent’s conduct, he was deprived of a portion of the custody period initially granted and thereby, lost valuable time with his minor son. It is further contended that the respondent acted in willful disobedience of the court’s order and interfered with his lawful custody rights. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

The petitioner – father/respondent – mother herein is the petitioner/respondent before the Family Court.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the both the parties and perused the material on