Karnataka High Court Strikes Down Blanket Ban on Mother's Access to Daughter: Welfare Trumps Stability Claims

In a significant ruling on parental rights, the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru , led by Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao , has quashed a Family Court order that completely barred a mother from seeing her minor daughter until after exams. The decision in WP No. 5971 of 2026 c/w WP No. 4443 of 2026 emphasizes that excluding a natural guardian demands compelling circumstances , prioritizing the child's holistic welfare over temporary academic routines.

From Matrimonial Bliss to Custody Clash: The Family Feud Unfolds

The saga revolves around Mrs. Shruti Sood alias Shruti Banerji , the petitioner and natural mother of Ms. Riya Banerji (born 2012), and her late husband Amit Banerji , a successful entrepreneur behind TableSpace Technologies Private Limited . Married in 2009, the couple faced strains from Amit's failing health—chronic lung issues exacerbated by smoking and alcohol—leading to his death in January 2025.

Post-demise, tensions erupted over the estate. Shruti filed for a succession certificate (P&SC No. 3/2025) and partition suit (OS No. 68/2025). In response, grandmother Mrs. Sarita Banerji (74) and aunt Mrs. Preeti Banerji Chopra launched guardianship proceedings under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (G&WC No. 15010/2025), securing an ex parte injunction in May 2025 barring Shruti from custody. The Family Court ( V Additional District Judge at Devanahalli ) extended this via IA No. III (January 12, 2026), dismissing Shruti's IA No. V plea to vacate it—prompting these writs under Article 227.

Mother's Plea: Natural Guardian Under Siege vs. Relatives' Stability Pitch

Shruti argued she was the natural guardian under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 , having solely handled Riya's upbringing—school, medical care, activities—until forcibly evicted from family properties amid estate disputes. She portrayed the suit as a "counterblast" by relatives, influenced by Preeti's husband (TableSpace Co-CEO), to usurp the child's inheritance. At 13, Riya needed her mother's emotional support, not an elderly grandmother's care or aunt's divided attention. The child interview? Likely tutored after months apart.

Respondents countered that Sarita provided a stable home at Prestige Golfshire villa , shielding Riya's academics amid exams (ending June 2026). They weren't anti-visitation post-exams but prioritized continuity, citing precedents on child welfare over parental rights absent unfitness.

Dissecting the Law: Why Interim Bans Can't Sever Maternal Bonds

Justice Rao applied the triple test for injunctions (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury) even in G&W Act proceedings, rejecting CPC dilution. Key distinction: This pitted mother (statutory guardian) against grandmother/aunt—not rival guardians. Blanket exclusion dilutes Section 6, needing proof of unfitness or imminent risk —absent here.

The court cautioned against over-relying on child interviews after prolonged separation, potential influence, and grief. Drawing from Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh (AIR 2017 SC 929), it warned of parental alienation from maternal denial. G. Prabhudev v. Ranganayaki (ILR 2025 Kar 2779) urged holistic welfare assessment. Respondents' citations ( Shazia Aman Khan , Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh ) affirmed welfare's primacy but didn't justify total shutdown.

Media summaries echoed this, noting the HC's quashing of the "ex parte interim injunction" as a mother's rights victory.

"An order of injunction at the interlocutory stage cannot be passed in a manner that completely excludes a natural parent from access to the child. Such exclusion can be justified only where the material on record discloses prima facie unfitness of the parent or a real and imminent risk to the welfare of the minor." (Para 27)

"No such exceptional circumstance is discernible in the present case. The material placed on record does not indicate any prima facie unfitness on the part of the petitioner nor any imminent risk..." (Para 29)

"Arrangements which result in exclusion of a parent, particularly the mother, from the life of a growing child are detrimental to the child’s welfare and may give rise to parental alienation." (Para 31, citing Vivek Singh)

"The paramount consideration to determine the custody of the child is the welfare of the child and not the rights of the litigating parties." (Para 31)

Liberty Restored: Injunction Lifted, Trial Ahead

The writs succeeded: IA No. III allowance and IA No. V dismissal set aside; injunction vacated. No final custody call—Family Court must adjudicate fully, uninfluenced. This restores Shruti's access immediately, signals courts' wariness of interim overreach in family disputes, and reinforces mothers' presumptive role unless welfare screams otherwise. Future cases may cite it to demand nuanced visitation over lockouts.