RITHVIK HEGDE vs DR. SHIVANI HEGDE

®
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

WRIT PETITION NO. 37759 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

C/W

WRIT PETITION NO. 38415 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

WRIT PETITION NO. 14682 OF 2026 (GM-FC)


IN WP NO. 37759/2025

BETWEEN:

RITHVIK HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI RAMKRISHNA HEGDE
RESIDING AT NO. 52,
SURAIYA APARTMENTS
POCHKHANAWALA ROAD, WORLI,
MUMBAI-400 030
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT.B.V.NIDHISHREE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

DR. SHIVANI HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT 357/A,
4TH MAIN, SADASHIVA NAGAR
UPPER PALACE ORCHARDS
BENGALURU - 560 080








Digitally
signed by
SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA

…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.ASHIKA GURUMATH, ADVOCATE)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 16.04.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE FIFTH
ADDITIONAL FAMILY JUDGE, BENGALURU IN M.C. NO.
4475/2020 AT ANNEXURE A AND REJECT THE PRAYER OF
DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO PROVIDE CONSENT FOR
OBTAINING UK VISA FOR THE CHILD IN ORDER TO ENABLE
THE RESPONDENT TO TAKE THE CHILD ALONG WITH HER TO
THE UK OR PERMITTING HER TO UNILATERALLY APPLY FOR
HIS VISA UNDER SECTION 26 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT
READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC SOUGHT BY THE
RESPONDENT IN MC NO. 4475/2020 IN HER INTERIM
APPLICATION NO. 11.

IN WP NO. 38415/2025

BETWEEN:

RITHVIK HEGDE
@ RITHVIK RAMCRISHNA HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI RAMCRISHNA HEGDE,
RESIDING AT NO. 52,
SURAIYA APARTMENTS,
POCHKHANAWALA ROAD, WORLI,
MUMBAI 400 030.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.B.V.NIDHISHREE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

DR. SHIVANI HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 357/A 4TH MAIN,
SADASHIVA NAGAR,
UPPER PALACE ORCHARDS,
BENGALURU- 560 080.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.ASHIKA GURUMATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 13.10.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE FIFTH
ADDITIONAL FAMILY JUDGE, BENGALURU IN M.C. NO.
4475/2020 AT ANNEXURE- A AND REJECT THE PRAYER OF
DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO CO-OPERATE WITH ALL THE
FORMALITIES REQUIRED FOR THE VISA PROCESS OF THE
MINOR CHILD UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE SOUGHT BY THE RESPONDENT IN MC NO.
4475/2020 IN HER INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 16.
IN WP NO. 14682/2026

BETWEEN:

MR. RITHVIK RAMA KRISHNA HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
SON OF LATE MR. RAMCRISHNA HEGDE
RESIDING AT NO.52,
SURAIYA APARTMENTS
POCHKHANWALA ROAD, WORLI
MUMBAI- 400 030
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. NIDHISHREE B.V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

DR. SHIVANI RITHVIK HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
WIFE OF MR. RITHVIK HEGDE
PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT 357/A
TH
4 MAIN, SADASHIVANAGAR
UPPER PALACE ORCHARDS
BENGALURU -560 080
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ASHIKA GURUMATH, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 15.04.2026 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE V
ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


BENGALURU ANNEXURE-A ON I.A NO. 18 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER WITH REGARD TO SHIFT/CHANGE IN INTERIM
CUSTODY OF THE CHILD FROM THE RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER HEREIN.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 16.09.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

CAV ORDER
W.P.No.37759/2025 has been filed by the father,
questioning an order dated 16.04.2025 passed by the V
Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, allowing
I.A.No.11 in M.C.No.4475/2020 filed by the mother,
whereby she sought a direction that the father be
directed to deliver the original passport of the minor child
to the mother and provide consent to obtain a Visa to the
United Kingdom for the minor child in order to permit the
mother to take the minor child along with her to the
United Kingdom.
2. W.P.No.38415/2025 has been filed by the
father seeking to set aside the order dated 13.10.2025
passed by the V Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court,

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


Bengaluru, allowing IA No.16 in M.C.No.4475/2020 filed
by the wife seeking the petitioner to co-operate with all
the formalities required for the Visa process of the minor
child. Since the said process is completed, nothing
survives for consideration in this writ petition.
3. W.P.No.14682/2026 has been filed
questioning the order dated 15.04.2026 passed by the V
Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, rejecting I.A
No.18 in M.C.No.4475/2020 filed by the father, with
regard to change of interim custody of the minor child
from the mother's family to the father along with other
consequential relief.
4. The parties in both the writ petitions are one
and the same, and considering the issues that are
involved, the writ petitions are disposed of by way of a
common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties
are referred to henceforth as father and mother.
W.P.No.37759/2025:
5. The Family Court by the order impugned
directed the father to deliver the original passport of his

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


minor son to the mother, to give consent for the renewal
of passport and permit the mother to unilaterally apply
and execute the document necessary for renewal of his
passport, to give his consent for obtaining the United
Kingdom Visa before the UK Consulate in Bangalore for
the minor, in order to enable the mother to take the child
along with her to the United Kingdom or permit her to
unilaterally apply for his Visa and to give consent for any
other requirements from the passport and Visa
Authorities for issuing the passport/ Visa of the Son, or
permit the mother to unilaterally apply for his passport
afresh and process his Visa to travel to / reside in UK
without reference to him. The Court further observed that
the mother shall facilitate the child to talk with the father
through video or audio calls for about 15 minutes
everyday at about 11:00 p.m. of Indian Standard Time.
Mother shall bring the child to Bangalore once a year
during his school summer vacations and hand over the
interim custody of the child to the father for 10 days

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


during such summer vacation. The mother shall furnish
the contact details of the child in UK to the father.
6. The Court, while passing the order, observed
that perusing the entire material on record, the Court is
of the view that for the best interest of the child and for
the career progress of the mother, I.A.No.11 has to be
allowed. The Court had also considered the judgments
relied upon and the respective contentions of the parties.

W.P.No.14682/2026:
7. The Family Court had dismissed I.A.No.18
filed by the father. The Family Court has observed that
the father is at liberty to exercise the visitation and video
call access as per the earlier order passed in the case till
the departure of the child to the U.K.
8. The Family Court while dismissing the
application has observed that the admitted facts are that
the respondent is the legally wedded wife of the
petitioner and their marriage had taken place on
23.01.2013. On 29.12.2014, they were blessed with a

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


son and they were staying in Mumbai, since April 2019,
parties have been living separately and their minor son is
under the custody of the mother. On 19.11.2020, the
husband filed the petition. As per the order dated
09.09.2001, the mother was directed to hand over the
child to the father between 10:00 a.m. to 01:00 p.m. on
10.09.2021 to celebrate Ganesha Festival and on
11.09.2021 to celebrate the birthday of the father with a
condition that the father shall not take the child beyond
the jurisdiction of the court and shall keep the child in
Aunt Smita Shetty, house in Sanjayanagar who is the
petitioner's mother's sister during the above said period.
On the aforesaid date, the advocate for the mother had
undertaken to drop the child at the Sanjayanagar house
and pick up the child from the said house. As per the
order dated 21.12.2021, passed in IA No.3 filed by the
father, father is permitted to exercise visitation on
alternate Sunday’s between 11:00 a.m. to 04:00 p.m. till
the disposal of the petition. He is also permitted to make
video call on alternate day for about one hour. It was

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


further ordered that the father shall consider the likes
and dislikes of the child while exercising visitation and he
is directed not to give any advice about the mother to the
child while exercising the visitation rights and if
necessary, mother may also join the father and the child
in the interest of the child. On 19.03.2025, the court
interacted with the child. On interaction, child stated that
he is ready to go to London along with his mother and he
will visit his father during vacation and talk to him
through video calls. As per the order dated 16.04.2025
passed on IA.No.11 filed by the mother, the father is
directed to deliver the original passport of his minor son
and to give consent for the renewal and also the mother
is permitted to take the child. In the said order, the court
has also observed how the father can talk to the child and
also when he can have the custody.
9. While dismissing I.A.No.18, the court had
observed that in this petition the father is seeking a
direction to the mother to immediately hand over the
interim custody of his minor son to him along with his

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


current passport, he shall be entitled to take all decisions
concerning the education, welfare, health and overall
upbringing of the child, including but not limited to
transfer the child from the current school in Bangalore to
an appropriate school in Mumbai, without interference
from the mother, the father to facilitate phone calls
between the child and the mother at 07:30 p.m. to 07:45
p.m. IST which would be convenient for the child’s
schedule and the father to hand over interim custody of
the child at a public place for the first 10 days of child's
summer vacation from his Mumbai school, if respondents
were to come to India the mother has to come to India
during that period. The mother has been permitted to
take the child to UK along with her, but due to the delay
in visa process of the child, she alone left to UK leaving
the child in India with her sister and father in Bangalore.
Since now the mother is in UK and child is with his
maternal relatives, the petitioner being his father has
filed this application. Had the respondent taken the child
along with her to UK, the petitioner would not have filed

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


this petition. The Court further observed that on perusal
of the entire material on record, at this stage, the Court
is of the opinion the earlier orders regarding the visitation
and video access by the father over the child is ordered
to be continued till the departure of the child to UK, it will
meet the ends of justice. Hence at this stage the father is
not entitled for the relief sought in the application.
Accordingly, the court had rejected the application.
Aggrieved thereby, the father is before this court.
10. The written submissions are placed before the
court by the learned counsel appearing for the father. In
one writ petition, the senior counsel represented the
father, and in the other writ petition, Smt. Nidhishree
B.V., learned counsel, represented the father.
11. It is the submission that, the trial court has
exceeded its jurisdiction. It is submitted that a perusal of
IA No.11 and IA No.16 and the pleadings of the
respondent shows that the affidavits or the prayers of IA.
No.11 does not seek permission for relocation of the
minor child. The Family Court has passed order

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


mechanically and without application of mind, and the
trial Court has proceeded to grant relief that has not been
prayed for by the respondent. When the respondent's
application itself does not seek the relocation, the Court
could not to have granted relief of relocation, which far
exceeds the trial court's jurisdiction. The respondent
sought to complete visa formalities and not relocation of
the minor child and such a substantial issue cannot be
decided perfunctorily as an implied relief and has to be
categorically granted. It is stated that as per the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Akella Lalita V.
1
Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao
the Hon’ble Apex Court
observed that the Court has the power to intervene only
when a prayer specific to the effect is made and such
prayer must be centered on the premise that child's
interest is the primary consideration and it outweighs all
other considerations. Therefore, there is no basis to
traverse beyond pleadings and construe the said orders
as conferring any permission, either express or implied,
for relocation of the minor child. Any such relocation

1
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 638

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


attempted by the mother, purportedly founded upon the
orders, will amount to a self-serving interpretation of the
order which is impermissible. It is stated that the mother
had not filed any proceedings seeking permanent custody
of the minor child. The husband has initiated the
proceedings on 21.06.2019. It is stated that the husband
has filed the divorce proceedings. As a counter blast,
thereto on 21.06.2019, the mother initiated proceedings
under G & WC No.196/2019 before the Family Court
seeking permanent custody. Then the husband had
entered appearance on 22.08.2019 and filed a statement
of objections as also an application seeking parenting
time of the minor child. On the very next day, on
23.08.2019, the mother filed a memo requesting
permission to withdraw the proceedings. The Family
Court permitted the mother to withdraw G & WC.
Thereafter, she has not filed any petition in the MC
seeking permanent custody of the minor child. It is
submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
2

Gaurav Nagpal V. Sumedha Nagpal has held that Section

2
(2009) 1 SCC 479

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


26 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 provides for custody of
the children and declares that in any proceeding under
the Act, the Court could make, from time to time, such
interim arrangements and orders as it might deem just
and proper with regard to custody, maintenance and
education of minor children, consequently with their
wishes wherever possible. It is stated that the impugned
order is bereft of reasons. The concept of reasoned
judgment has become an indispensable part of basic rule
of law and, it is a mandatory requirement. There is
misrepresentation by the wife to obtain orders and
parental alienation. The mother has time and again
placed inconsistent and contradictory material on record
with regard to her alleged place of employment as well as
with regard to the alleged school of accommodations in
which she intends to place the minor child. It is stated
that she was to be employed by the North Middlesex
Hospital, North London Trust, in the City of London.
Further, the mother provided the details of several
relatives who lived in the City of London to support her

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


contention that she and the minor child would have a
support system that they could rely on, should the need
arise. However, in the affidavit dated 02.09.2026 filed by
the Power of Attorney Holder of the mother, it is claimed
that the respondent has secured employment at one Betsi
Cadwaldr University Health Board at Ysbyty Gwynedd,
Bangor, and not at North Middlesex Hospital, North
London Trust, City of London as earlier stated. Further, in
the affidavit dated 16.09.2024 filed in support of I.A.
No.17 before the Family Court, it has been clearly stated
by the mother that she had secured admission in Ysgol
Hirael School for the minor child. It was only after the
father brought it to the attention of the Court that the
medium of instruction in the said institution was Welsh,
that the mother attempted to take remedial steps to
change the institution in which the minor child was
enrolled. However, in the affidavit dated 02.09.2026 filed
by the Power of Attorney holder of the mother, it is stated
that the minor child was never enrolled in the Welsh
school, named Ysgol Hirael, but the mother merely made

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


enquiries regarding the availability of a seat, though no
admission was taken at the school. These statements of
the respondents are contradictory and clearly
demonstrate duplicitous nature of the respondent. It is
stated that the documents produced by the mother are
vague, ambiguous and lack requisite particulars. It is
submitted that with regard to the employment, with
regard to the school and with regard to the place of
residence, there is ambiguity. It is stated that the
competence of the father has not been questioned. There
has been no finding by the Family Court whereby the
petitioner has been deemed as an unsuitable guardian for
the minor child. In fact, the father shares a very close
attachment with the minor child and the same was stated
by the child during the course of his interaction with the
court on 02.09.2026. The father is a well qualified
professional with adequate financial means to support the
minor child. Furthermore, the petitioner resides in
Bombay with his mother and sister, both of whom share a
close bond with the minor child. Therefore, the father,

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


who is the legal guardian and biological parent of the
child, is equipped with the necessary emotional and
financial support system to take care of the minor child.
No documents are placed before the court to show that
how the father is not competent to have the custody of
the child. It is stated that it is an alien environment for
the minor child in Wales. If the child is relocated, the
parenting time that is granted to the father will be
breached. It is stated that the mother had violated the
orders passed by the court whenever the parenting time
was granted to the father.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner/father
relied on the following judgments:
Komal Krishan Arora and Others Vs. Sandeep
i.
3
Kumar and Others . He relied on para No.21, which reads
as under:
“21. With the above, we abstain from observing
much about the conduct of the mother and the
manner in which Master K was left by her at
Sonipat with the grandparents. The factum of
leaving the child with the grandparents could
only be unveiled when the proceedings were

3
2025 SCC Online SC 2008

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


set in motion on filing of the writ in the nature
of habeas corpus, wherein the interim custody
of the child had been directed to be handed
over to the father looking to the best interest of
the child. In such circumstances, where the
mother is staying in London with Miss N and
Master K is staying with grandparents, despite
the availability of father, who has sufficient
means of sustenance to undertake the well-
being of the child, as reflected from affidavit
dated 27.08.2025 filed by him in compliance of
directions given by this Court, the best interest
of Master K needs to be ascertained. On perusal
of affidavit, it reveals that father is a qualified
engineer having Master's degree in Computer
Science with a post-graduate diploma in
Business Administration. He was also employed
in Singapore, United Kingdom and US for time
being. Thus, his academic credentials and
professional competence cannot be doubted.
Similarly, looking to other factors, his earning
is sufficient, and he is owner of residential flat
in Sector-70, Noida and currently residing there
with his mother and younger sister. In our
considered opinion, Noida is more suitably
located than Sonipat, having better educational
institutes, therefore, in our view, welfare of the
Master K, would be served if the interim
custody of the child is given to the father who
is also the natural guardian, subject to further
orders by the competent Court of jurisdiction,
wherein the proceedings for custody under the
provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act,
1890 be initiated in this regard. The affidavit
dated 27.08.2025 filed by the father shall be
treated as an undertaking and the contents
thereof be treated as part of this order.”

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


4
ii. Mausami Moitra Ganguli Vs. Jayant Ganguli
He relied on paragraph Nos.19, 23 and 26, which read as
under:
“19. The principles of law in relation to the
custody of a minor child are well settled. It is trite
that while determining the question as to which
parent the care and control of a child should be
committed, the first and the paramount
consideration is the welfare and interest of the
child and not the rights of the parents under a
statute. Indubitably, the provisions of law
pertaining to the custody of a child contained in
either the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890
(Section 17) or the Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956 (Section 13) also hold out
the welfare of the child as a predominant
consideration. In fact, no statute, on the subject,
can ignore, eschew or obliterate the vital factor of
the welfare of the minor.
23. Having bestowed our anxious consideration to
the material on record and the observations made
by the courts below, we are of the view that in
the present case there is no ground to upset the
judgment and order of the High Court. There is
nothing on record to suggest that the welfare of
the child is in any way in peril in the hands of the
father. In our opinion, the stability and security of
the child is also an essential ingredient for a full
development of child's talent and personality. As
noted above, the appellant is a teacher, now
employed in a school at Panipat, where she had
shifted from Chandigarh some time back. Earlier,
she was teaching in some school at Calcutta.
Admittedly, she is living all alone. Except for a
very short duration when he was with the
appellant, Master Satyajeet has been living and
studying in Allahabad in a good school and is
stated to have his small group of friends there. At
Panipat, it would be an entirely new environment
for him as compared to Allahabad.

4
(2008) 7 SCC 673

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


26. Under these circumstances and bearing in
mind the paramount consideration of the welfare
of the child, we are convinced that the child's
interest and welfare will be best served if he
continues to be in the custody of the father. In
our opinion, for the present, it is not desirable to
disturb the custody of Master Satyajeet and,
therefore, the order of the High Court giving his
exclusive custody to the father with visitation
rights to the mother deserves to be maintained.
We feel that the visitation rights given to the
appellant by the High Court, as noted above, also
do not require any modification. We, therefore,
affirm the order and the aforeextracted directions
given by the High Court. It will, however, be open
to the parties to move this Court for modification
of this order or for seeking any direction
regarding the custody and well-being of the child,
if there is any change in the circumstances.”

5
iii. Gaurav Nagpal Vs. Sumedha Nagpal He
relied on paragraph Nos.42 and 43, which read as under:
“42. Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
provides for custody of children and declares that
in any proceeding under the said Act, the court
could make, from time to time, such interim
orders as it might deem just and proper with
respect to custody, maintenance and education of
minor children, consistently with their wishes,
wherever possible.
43. The principles in relation to the custody of a
minor child are well settled. In determining the
question as to who should be given custody of a
minor child, the paramount consideration is the
“welfare of the child” and not rights of the
parents under a statute for the time being in
force.”

5
(2009) 1 SCC 42

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


iv. Mrs.Akella Lalitha Vs. Sri Konda
6
Hanumantha Rao and Anr , he relied on paragraph
Nos.15 and 18, which read as under:
“15. Coming to address the second issue, while
this Court is not apathetic to the predicament of
the Respondent grandparents, it is a fact that
absolutely no relief was ever sought by them for
the change of surname of the child to that of first
husband/ son of respondents. It is settled law
that relief not found on pleadings should not be
granted. If a Court considers or grants a relief for
which no prayer or pleading was made depriving
the respondent of an opportunity to oppose or
resist such relief, it would lead to miscarriage of
justice.
18. In this case while directing for change of
surname of the child, the High Court has
traversed beyond pleadings and such directions
are liable to be set aside on this ground.”

v. Smt. Sneha Harishchandra Sumithra Vs. Mr.
7
Sudhir Das Venkata Das , he relied on paragraph Nos.
33 and 34, which read as under:
“33. Coming to the facts of the present case, the boy
is aged about 15 years and he wants to stay and
spend time with the mother. Having spent these
many years with the father, the boy is entitled to
spend time with the mother. The present case is not
merely a dispute between two litigating parents
asserting their legal rights over the minor child but
it reflects the tragic consequences of prolonged
litigation in which innocent child becomes the silent
sufferer. A mother's love and affection occupy a

6
(2022) SCC Online SC 928
7
W.P.No.25901/2024 D.D 19.12.2025

- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


unique and irreplaceable place in the emotional
development of the child. The nurturing care,
emotional warmth and psychological security a
mother provides are fundamental to the balanced
growth of the child. This kind of alienation from the
mother, particularly at the tender age, leaves
emotional consequences on the child which will
have a long lasting effect. Childhood is a delicate
phase of life in which emotional bonds play a very
crucial role in shaping personality and emotional
stability. A prolonged alienation from one parent,
particularly from the mother may create feelings of
confusion, insecurity and emotional deprivation.
This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the
mother had to wage relentless legal battles over the
past six years merely to regain the companionship
and affection of her own child. This will inflict deep
psychological distress upon the parent who is
deprived of the company of the child. This Court is
conscious of the fact that no judicial order can
compensate the six long years of separation and the
childhood years that have passed cannot be
restored. Custody litigation, when prolonged, often
degenerates into a contest of endurance between
the parents, but the child becomes the victim of
such conflict. The Courts must therefore guard
against permitting the legal process to become an
instrument that perpetuates emotional separation
between a child and a loving parent. The Hon'ble
Apex Court has repeatedly emphasized that custody
disputes must not be treated as adversarial battles.
The ultimate focus of the Court must always remain
on psychological and emotional welfare of the child
which includes preserving and nurturing the bond
between the child and both parents.
34. The Courts must not permit circumstances
where a parent, by retaining the child during the
pendency of litigation is able to create a situation,
whereby the passage of time itself becomes an
argument against restoring the earlier position.
Time spent in litigation should not become a
weapon to defeat the legitimate emotional claims of
a parent or to perpetuate the separation between a
child and the parent who seeks only to nurture and
care for him. This case is a classic example and a

- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


reminder that custody disputes must be resolved
with sensitivity. Urgency and a constant awareness
that the true stake holder in such proceedings is the
child, whose childhood continues to pass while the
litigation persists. In the considered opinion of this
Court, Bangalore is not the ordinary residence of the
child and the Family Court at Bengaluru has no
jurisdiction and the Family Court ought to have
allowed the application.”

vi. Mr. Jebin Mathew Varughese Vs. Mrs.
8
Pamela Sansa Daniel , he relied on paragraph Nos.5, 6,
8 and 9, which read as under:
“5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that continued denial of visitation rights is
causing irreparable harm to both the petitioner
and the minor child and the parent-child
relationship is being systematically damaged due
to the prolonged separation and hence, there is
necessity of urgent interim relief to protect the
welfare of the child. He further contends that
granting interim visitation rights to the petitioner
will ensure that the minor child maintains a
healthy relationship with both the parents during
pendency of the custody proceedings and if the
visitation rights is granted to the petitioner, no
prejudice will be caused to the respondent
whereas denial of such right will cause
irreparable harm to the petitioner and the minor
child. Hence, prays for allowing the petition and
expeditious disposal of I.A.No.2 pending before
the Family Court.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent contends
that the interim relief sought by the petitioner is
nothing but a grant of very final relief sought in
the main petition and it is settled principle of law
that no interim order can be granted which
amounts to granting the final relief itself, as such
an order would render the main petition

8
W.P.No.2966/2026 D.D 24.03.2026

- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


infructuous even before the main matter is
adjudicated on merits. She further contends that
a protective order has already been passed by the
Family Court on 05.01.2025 in G &
W.C.No.488/2024 in favour of the respondent,
which restrains the petitioner from interfering
with the custody, care and well being of the minor
son. She further contends that respondent is the
natural guardian and is presently taking care of
the child’s health, education, emotional and
psychological well-being and there is no change
in circumstances warranting a disruption of the
status quo. Hence, prays for dismissal of the
petition.
8. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and on perusal of the material on
record, this Court finds that certain foundational
facts are not in dispute, namely, the marital
relationship between the parties, the birth of the
minor child on 07.08.2016, the pendency of G &
W.C.No.35/2025 and that the minor child is
presently in the custody of the respondent-
mother and pursuing his education. It is also not
in dispute that the petitioner had filed I.A. No.2
before the Family Court under Section 12 of the
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking interim
custody of the minor child.
9. Having regard to the paramount consideration
of the welfare of the minor child and the necessity
of ensuring meaningful access to both parents,
this Court deems it appropriate to direct the
Family Court to consider and dispose of the
application – I.A.No.2 as expeditiously as
possible, in accordance with law, bearing in mind
the welfare of the child and the settled principles
governing visitation and shared parenting.”

- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


vii. Mr. Preetam A Eklaspur Vs. Smt.
9
Vanishree , he relied on paragraph Nos.31 and 40,
which read as under:
“31. In view of the provisions of Section 6(a) of
the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956,
the natural guardian of a Hindu minor, in the case
of a boy or an unmarried girl is the father, and
after him, the mother. The provisions of Section
19 of the G & W Act deals with when a guardian
not to be appointed by the Court and as per the
said section, nothing in the Chapter shall
authorize the Court to appoint or declare a
guardian of the property of a minor whose
property is under the superintendence of a Court
of Wards or to appoint or declare a guardian of
the person of a minor who is married female and
whose husband is not in the opinion of Court,
unfit to be guardian of her person, or of a minor
whose father is living and is not in the opinion of
the Court, unfit to be guardian of the person of
the minor, or of a minor whose property is under
the superintendence of a Court of Wards
competent to appoint a guardian of the person of
the minor. Admittedly in the present case, the
female child is aged more than ten years and is
capable of understanding the things about her
welfare and she has categorically stated before
the Family Court as well as this Court that she
prefers to stay with her father with whom she is
more comfortable than mother.
40. For the reasons stated above, the 1st point
raised in the present writ petitions is answered in
the negative holding that the Family Court is not
justified in passing the impugned order dated
30.10.2018 rejecting I.A. No.2 filed by the
petitioner - father under Section 12 of the
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for interim
custody of minor child - Prisha, aged about 10
years. Consequently, Point No.2 is also answered
in the negative holding that the Family Court is

9
(2019) SCC Online Kar 563

- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


not justified in passing the impugned order dated
7.11.2018 allowing I.A. No.5 filed by the
respondent - mother directing the jurisdictional
Police to assist the respondent in securing
custody of minor child - Prisha from the
petitioner. In view of the above and taking into
consideration the paramount interest of the minor
child- Prisha, who is aged more than 10 years,
and the consistent wishes expressed by her
before the Family Court as well as before this
Court, the impugned orders passed by the Family
Court cannot be sustained and are liable to
quashed.

viii. Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi and Another Vs.
10
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , he relied on
relevant para 6 and 7, which read under:
“6. It has to be specifically noticed that in
Tejaswini Gaud and others5, this court had
permitted the invocation of the extraordinary
remedy seeking custody of the child under Article
226 of the Constitution of India since the custody
was sought by the father, the natural guardian of
the minor child, from the sister and brother of the
mother, who did not have any legal right to claim
the custody of the child. Gautam Kumar Das1
relied on Tejaswini Gaud5 to enable the natural
guardian, the father, custody of a minor child,
who was with the maternal aunts; in a petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Quoting Nirmala2 it was also held that there can
be no hard and fast rule insofar as the
maintainability of a Habeas Corpus petition
relating to custody of minor children; which
would depend on the facts and circumstances of
each case.
7. In the present case also, the father is seeking
custody of the child from the grand-parents who
were also looking after the child with the help of

10
(2025) 4 SCC 342

- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


the siblings of the mother; admittedly. The
grandfather had also initiated a proceeding for
maintenance, claiming Rs.20,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Thousand only) per month for the child;
which makes it clear that the grandparents are
unable to look after the child by themselves.”

11
ix. Vivek Singh Vs. Romani Singh , he relied on
para Nos.3,16 and 18, which read as under:
“3. The appellant herein contested the said
petition by filing the written statement wherein
he took the stand that the respondent was not in
a position to look after the child as there is
nobody to look after her when the respondent
goes for work. He also mentioned that
respondent's parents are residing at NOIDA
whereas she is working and living in Delhi. On the
contrary, it is the appellant who had provided all
necessary expenses for the maintenance of the
child, and even the respondent. He even accused
the respondent for invariably getting drunk on
their visits to Army Officers Mess in the parties.
The trial court framed the issue which touches
upon the dispute that is whether the petitioner
(the respondent herein) is entitled to custody of
the child. Evidence was led by both the parties
who examined themselves as PW-1 and RW-1
respectively. The Principal Judge, Family Court
was of the opinion that the appellant is fit person
to retain the custody of the child and, therefore,
dismissed the petition filed by the respondent
herein.
16. In the instant case, the factors which weigh in
favour of the appellant are that child Saesha is
living with him from tender age of 21 months. She
is happy in his company. In fact, her desire is to
continue to live with the appellant. Normally,
these considerations would have prevailed upon
us to hold that custody of Saesha remain with the
appellant. However, that is only one side of the

11
(2017) 3 SCC 231

- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


picture. We cannot, at the same time, ignore the
other side. A glimpse, nay, a proper glance at the
other side is equally significant. From the events
that took place and noted above, following
overwhelming factors in favour of respondent
emerge.
16.1 For first 21 months when the parties were
living together, it is the respondent who had
nursed the child. The appellant cannot even claim
to have an edge over the respondent during this
period, when the child was still an infant, who
would have naturally remained in the care and
protection of the respondent - mother, more than
the appellant – father. Finding to this effect has
been arrived at by the High Court as well. This
position even otherwise cannot be disputed.
16.2 The respondent was forcibly deprived by the
custody of Saesha from August 04, 2010 when
she was forced to leave the matrimonial house.
As per the respondent, on that date the appellant
in a drunken state gave beatings to her and threw
her out of the house. The respondent had called
the police. The police personnel called the military
police and a complaint was lodged. The
respondent had also called her parents who had
come to her house from NOIDA. Her parents took
hold of the child and the appellant and when they
were about to leave, the appellant pulled out the
child from the hands of her mother and went
inside the house and locked himself. He was
drunk at that time. The police suggested not to do
anything otherwise appellant would harm the
child. It was assured that the child would be
returned to her in the morning. In any case, the
respondent and the appellant were instructed to
come to the police along with the child, next
morning. The appellant did not bring the child and
threatened that he would not give the child to
her. Since then, she had been running from pillar
to post to get the child back but respondent had
been refusing. The respondent, therefore, cannot
be blamed at all, if the custody of the child
remained with the appellant, after the separation
of the parties.

- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


16.3 Within the few days, i.e. on August 26, 2010,
the respondent filed the petition seeking custody
of the child and for appointment of her guardian.
She did not lose any time making her intentions
clear that as a natural mother she wanted to have
the custody of the child. It was her mis- fortune
that the trial court vide its judgment dated
December 07, 2011 dismissed her petition.
Though, she filed the appeal against the said
judgment immediately, but during the pendency
of the appeal, the custody remained with the
appellant because of the dismissal of the petition
by the Family Court. The High Court has, by
impugned judgment dated April 02, 2013 granted
the custody to the respondent. However, the
respondent has not been able to reap the benefit
thereof because of the interim orders passed in
the instant appeal. It is in these circumstances
that child Saesha from the tender age of 21
months has remained with the appellant and
today she is 8 years and 3 months. Obviously,
because of this reason, as of today, she is very
much attached to the father and she thinks that
she should remain in the present environment. A
child, who has not seen, experienced or lived the
comfort of the company of the mother is,
naturally, not in a position to comprehend that
the grass on the other side may turn out to be
greener. Only when she is exposed to that
environment of living with her mother, that she
would be in a position to properly evaluate as to
whether her welfare lies more in the company of
her mother or in the company of her father. As of
today, the assessment and perception are one
sided. Few years ago, when the High Court passed
the impugned judgment, the ground realities
were different.
18. The aforesaid observations, contained in para
31 of the order of the High Court extracted above,
apply with greater force today, when Saesha is 8
years' old child. She is at a crucial phase when
there is a major shift in thinking ability which
may help her to understand cause and effect
better and think about the future. She would need
regular and frequent contact with each parent as
well as shielding from parental hostility.

- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


Involvement of both parents in her life and
regular school attendance are absolutely essential
at this age for her personality development. She
would soon be able to establish her individual
interests and preferences, shaped by her own
individual personality as well as experience.
Towards this end, it also becomes necessary for
parents to exhibit model good behaviour and set
healthy and positive examples as much and as
often as possible. It is the age when her
emotional development may be evolving at a
deeper level than ever before. In order to ensure
that she achieves stability and maturity in her
thinking and is able to deal with complex
emotions, it is necessary that she is in the
company of her mother as well, for some time.
This Court cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that
there have been strong feelings of bitterness,
betrayal, anger and distress between the
appellant and the respondent, where each party
feels that they are 'right' in many of their views
on issues which led to separation. The intensity of
negative feeling of the appellant towards the
respondent would have obvious effect on the
psyche of Saesha, who has remained in the
company of her father, to the exclusion of her
mother. The possibility of appellant's effort to get
the child to give up her own positive perceptions
of the other parent, i.e., the mother and change
her to agree with the appellant's view point
cannot be ruled out thereby diminishing the
affection of Saesha towards her mother.
Obviously, the appellant, during all this period,
would not have said anything about the positive
traits of the respondent. Even the matrimonial
discord between the two parties would have been
understood by Saesha, as perceived by the
appellant. Psychologist term it as 'The Parental
Alienation Syndrome'[4]. It has at least two
psychological destructive effects:
(i) First, it puts the child squarely in the middle of
a contest of loyalty, a contest which cannot
possibly be won. The child is asked to choose who
is the preferred parent. No matter whatever is the
choice, the child is very likely to end up feeling
painfully guilty and confused. This is because in

- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


the overwhelming majority of cases, what the
child wants and needs is to continue a
relationship with each parent, as independent as
possible from their own conflicts.”
(ii) Second, the child is required to make a shift in
assessing reality.”

Relying on these judgments, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that both the orders needs to be set
aside and the custody shall be shifted to the father.
13. The learned Senior Counsel representing the
learned counsel for the mother had argued at length and
also placed written submissions before this Court. It is
the case that the mother and her minor son, who was
aged 4 years, in May 2019, were thrown out of the
matrimonial home, which is a 5-bedroom sea-facing
apartment situated in Worli, Mumbai. By email dated
03.05.2019, the petitioner/father informed the mother
that he had entered into a Lease and License Agreement
for a 225 sq. ft apartment at Century Mill, MHADA
Towards, Prabhadevi, which is a government slum
rehabilitation project intended for mill workers. The father
had initially filed petition No.A-1735/2019 seeking divorce
before the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai, which was

- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


transferred to the Family Court at Bangalore in terms of
the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on
01.10.2019. It is submitted that the mother has been the
primary caregiver of the minor child since May 2019 and
has shouldered the responsibility of his upbringing,
education and day-to-day welfare. Despite having the
means, the father has repeatedly failed to contribute
towards the child's expenses. An order directing him to
reimburse the child's school fee is also challenged by him
in Criminal Revision Petition No.198/2025, which is
pending before the Court. Even 50% of the school fees of
the child had to be secured through repeated directions of
the court dated 21.09.2022, 30.10.2022, 21.11.2022 and
04.05.2023, followed by a further direction dated
18.04.2024. The repeated necessity of Court intervention
demonstrates that the respondent cannot reasonably be
expected to depend upon the father's voluntary financial
support for the child's future. The minor child and the
mother were forced to take shelter at the maternal
grandparents' house for the past 7 years. The mother

- 33 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


was doing a part-time job in a clinic near her house, as
the minor child needed her care and attention and she
was earning approximately Rs.30,000/- per month, while
her elderly father aged about 76 years, who had been
supporting the household and the child's essential
expenses, is no longer financially or physically capable of
continuing that burden. Due to several financial
constraints, the mother was even compelled to
discontinue all the child's extracurricular activities despite
his high aptitude. The mother has a Master's degree in
Ophthalmology and studied further and wrote licencing
exam for over 3 years so she could give her son a better
life. She then obtained the requisite licence to practice
medicine in the United Kingdom. Her employment in the
UK provides a substantially better and more secure
financial position, enabling her to provide the child with
stable housing, education, healthcare and extracurricular
opportunities. The father had filed WP No.2749/2024
challenging the parenting time granted to him on IA No.3,
in which the mother filed an application in IA No.2/2024

- 34 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


seeking relocation. The High Court remanded the matter
to the Family Court to consider the prayer for relocation
within one month pursuant to which the Family Court
ordered in favour of the mother, which is again under
challenge. It is stated that the mother filed an application
in IA No.11 in MC No.4475/2020 along with an affidavit
praying for directions against the father to deliver the
original passport of minor child Master Reyansh, to give
consent for the renewal of the passport, to give consent
for obtaining Visa to United Kingdom, to enable her to
take the child along with her to United Kingdom, to give
consent for any other requirements from Passport and
Visa authorities for issuing the passport and Visa. In her
detailed affidavit in support of IA No.11, she narrated
how the father had consistently failed to fulfil his
responsibilities as a parent and had made no contribution
whatsoever towards the upbringing and welfare of the
child. It is stated that the mother has also placed on
record the father's volatile and aggressive conduct, his
attempts to malign her before the minor child, and his

- 35 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


pornographic and promiscuous conduct, which raised
serious concerns regarding his suitability for custody and
are relevant to the child's welfare and best interest. The
mother's statement about the volatile and unstable
nature of the father gets fortified by the father's conduct
of attending the school class, on behalf of his son in the
school at Bombay along with other children of ages 6 to 8
years. It is stated that the mother has consistently
recognised the father's parenting time and has never
sought to sever the father-child relationship. Since the
child moved from Mumbai to Bangalore in May 2019, the
father has not had custody of the child except during
court-order parenting time and permitted video calls,
which the respondent continues to facilitate in accordance
with the orders. The proposed relocation is therefore not
a whimsical or unilateral issue to remove the child from
the father. It is a considered step necessitated by his
mother's circumstances and undertaken to secure the
child's long-term welfare. The mother's employment is
also structured in a manner that permits her to personally

- 36 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


care for the child, with working hours from 09:00 to
05:00 p.m. Monday to Friday. It is stated that
contribution of a supposedly most loving father in his
penchant for challenging each and every order passed by
the Family Court in favour of the minor's son, including
the challenge to the order dated 23.10.2020 passed by
the DV Court and confirmed by the Session Court on
16.11.2024 and now challenged before the Court in
Criminal Revision Petition No.198/2025 to reimburse the
school fee, of an amount of Rs.2,56,250/- and
Rs.2,06,250/- for two terms of academic year 2019-
2020, which is pending consideration by the Court. It is
submitted that the father owns a huge residential
apartment in Malabar Hill, Mumbai which is a posh
nd
locality, and also has a vacant bungalow at RMV 2
Stage, Bangalore which has remained unoccupied for
several years. Despite having access to such substantially
better accommodation, he has never offered the said
bungalow to the minor child as a residence or taken any
comparable step to facilitate the child's education and

- 37 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


welfare in Bangalore, including at a reputed school such
as Mallya Aditi. In fact, the father proposed that the
minor child reside in 225 square feet apartment at
Century Mill, MHADA Towers, Prabhadevi. The mother,
who has been a child's primary caregiver has now herself
secured employment and financial independence and has
made concrete arrangements for the child's residence,
education and overall welfare in the United Kingdom. It is
stated that the Family Court had considering all the
aspects and rightly passed an order.
14. An affidavit is filed before the Court along
with the documents dated 02.09.2026 wherein it is stated
that the child has been granted a Dependent Child-Skilled
Worker E-Visa. It is stated that mother is presently
employed by Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board as
a Specialty Doctor in Ophthalmology at Ysbyty Gwynedd
Bangor. The letter also confirms that she had been
employed since 22.10.2025, she resides in the doctor's
accommodation provided by the hospital and her working
hours are from 09:00 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. from Monday to

- 38 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


Friday and she stated that her current address is 6, Llys
Afallan, Ysbyty Gwynedd, Penrhosgarnedd, Bangor, LL57
2PN, United Kingdom. It is stated that the welfare and
education of the minor children have always been the
foremost consideration of the mother, who has secured
admission for the minor child at Rydal Penrhos School, a
reputed and fully English-medium educational institution.
The admission was confirmed by email dated 03.08.2026.
She has also arranged for the minor child's transportation
to and fro with available bus facility from Bangor. The
documents clearly establish the present and actual
position with respect to the mother’s residence,
employment and the minor child's education and
transportation in the United Kingdom. The earlier
arrangements referred to by the father have changed and
ceased to be relevant due to subsequent developments.
It is stated that the mother has nothing to conceal from
the court and has placed on record the current address,
employment particulars, visa, education arrangements
and transportation arrangements of the minor child with

- 39 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


complete transparency. The godliness attributed so
eloquently to the father with a deep, emotive content is a
complete hoax as it established by his own plan of
shifting his own son from a 5 bed-room palatial sea facing
apartment in South Bombay which was a matrimonial
home to a rehabilitation housing unit for slum dwellers.
15. Learned counsel appearing for the mother has
relied on the following judgments:
12
i. Vikram Vir Vohra Vs. Shalini Bhalla ,
he relied on
paragraph Nos.14,19,23 and 24, which read as under:
“14. The child categorically stated that he wants
to stay with his mother. It appears to us that the
child is about 8-10 years of age and is in a very
formative and impressionable stage in his life.
The welfare of the child is of paramount
importance in matters relating to child custody
and this Court has held that welfare of the child
may have a primacy even over statutory
provisions [See Mausami Moitra Ganguli vs.
Jayant Ganguli - (2008) 7 SCC 673, para 19, page
678]. We have considered this matter in all its
aspects.
19. Even though the aforesaid principles have
been laid down in proceedings under the
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, these principles
are equally applicable in dealing with the custody
of a child under Section 26 of the Act since in both
the situations two things are common; the first,
being orders relating to custody of a growing
child and secondly, the paramount consideration

12
AIR 2010 SC 1675

- 40 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


of the welfare of the child. Such considerations
are never static nor can they be squeezed in a
strait jacket. Therefore, each case has to be dealt
with on the basis of its peculiar facts.
23. Now coming to the question of the child being
taken to Australia and the consequent variations
in the visitation rights of the father, this Court
finds that the Respondent mother is getting a
better job opportunity in Australia. Her autonomy
on her personhood cannot be curtailed by Court
on the ground of a prior order of custody of the
child. Every person has a right to develop his or
her potential. In fact a right to development is a
basic human right. The respondent-mother cannot
be asked to choose between her child and her
career. It is clear that the child is very dear to her
and she will spare no pains to ensure that the
child gets proper education and training in order
to develop his faculties and ultimately to become
a good citizen. If the custody of the child is
denied to her, she may not be able to pursue her
career in Australia and that may not be conducive
either to the development of her career or to the
future prospects of the child. Separating the child
from his mother will be disastrous to both.
24. Insofar as the father is concerned, he is
already established in India and he is also
financially solvent. His visitation rights have been
ensured in the impugned orders of the High Court.
His rights have been varied but have not been
totally ignored. The appellant-father, for all these
years, lived without the child and got used to it.”

13
ii. Mrs. Ritika Sharan Vs. Mr. Sujoy Ghosh , he relied
on paragraph Nos.14, 16 and 19, which read as under:
“14. The primary consideration that must weigh
with the Court is the welfare of the child. The
respondent has asserted in the course of the
submissions, that the child is in the custody of the
parents of the appellant in Bengaluru and should

13
(2020)10 SCR 363

- 41 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


remain with them. Alternatively, he submitted
that he would take charge of the child. While the
parents of the appellant may have volunteered at
least temporarily to relocate from NOIDA to
Bengaluru to help the appellant in looking after
the child, we are clearly of the view that the
respondent cannot be heard to assert that the
child must continue to remain in Bengaluru with
the maternal grand-parents. For the respondent
to insist that the court should direct the continued
presence of the child under the care of the
maternal grand-parents who have come to
Bengaluru and stay in a rented accommodation
obtained by the appellant, does not appear to be
fair. Nor is there sufficient material before the
Court to indicate that the respondent is in a
position to look after the child on his own, by
disturbing a position which has held the field
since 2016. Before 2016, when the spouses were
together, the child lived and grew up in the care
of both the parents. Since 2016, the appellant has
taken the responsibility for the welfare of the
child.
16. During the course of the interaction on the
video-conferencing platform, Sattik indicated his
desire to reside with his mother in Singapore.
While the child is attached to the respondent, he
has indicated, in no uncertain terms, his desire to
live with his mother. The appellant is gainfully
employed in Singapore and her desire that she
should be allowed to take the child with her is not
an artifice. The appellant, as the mother of the
child, has been continuously with the child since
his birth, despite the demands of her
employment.
19. Ms Meenakshi Arora has submitted that the
respondent has made no contribution for the
maintenance of the child. On the other hand, the
respondent in the course of his submissions,
stated that he is bearing the expenses of
servicing the loan which was undertaken by the
parties for obtaining a residential flat in joint
names. Be that as it may, we are of the view that
the interests of the child require that the
appellant be allowed to take the child with her to

- 42 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


Singapore, where the appellant resides. At the
same time, the ultimate directions that the Court
issues must also address the apprehension of the
respondent that the child should not be placed
outside the control and jurisdiction of the Family
Court, Bengaluru. Adequate arrangements for
access and visitation to the respondent should be
ensured.

iii. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Machado
14
Brothers and Others ,
he relied on para Nos.20, 22, 25
and 31,which read as under:
“20. From the above, it is clear that if there is no
specific provision which prohibits the grant of
relief sought in an application filed under Section
151 of the Code, the courts have all the necessary
powers under Section 151 CPC to make a suitable
order to prevent the abuse of the process of
court. Therefore, the court exercising the power
under section 151 CPC first has to consider
whether exercise of such power is expressly
prohibited by any other provisions of the Code
and if there is no such prohibition then the Court
will consider whether such power should be
exercised or not on the basis of facts mentioned
in the application.
22. While examining this question we will have to
consider whether the court can take cognizance
of a subsequent event to decide whether the
pending suit should be disposed of or kept alive.
If so, can a defendant make an application under
Section 151 CPC for dismissing the pending suit
on the ground the said suit has lost its cause of
action. This Court in the case of Pasupuleti
Venkateswarlu vs. The Motor & General Traders
(1975 1 SCC 770 at para 4) has held thus:
"We feel the submissions devoid of substance.
First about the jurisdiction and propriety vis-`-vis
circumstances which come into being subsequent

14
(2004) 11 SCC 168

- 43 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


to the commencement of the proceedings. It is
basic to our processual jurisprudence that the
right to relief must be judged to exist as on the
date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding.
Equally clear is the principle that procedure is the
handmaid and not the mistress of the judicial
process. If a fact, arising after the lis has come to
court and has a fundamental impact on the right
to relief or the manner of moulding it, is brought
diligently to the notice of the tribunal, it cannot
blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or
render inept the decretal remedy. Equality
justifies bending the rules of procedure, where no
specific provision or fairplay is not violated, with
a view to promote substantial justice subject, of
course, to the absence of other disentitling
factors or just circumstances. Nor can we
contemplate any limitation on this power to take
note of updated facts to confine it to the trial
court. If the litigation pends, the power exists,
absent other special circumstances repelling
resort to that course in law or justice. Rulings on
this point are legion, even as situations for
applications of this equitable rule are myriad. We
affirm the proposition that for making the right or
remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful
as also legally and factually in accord with the
current realities, the court can, and in many cases
must, take cautious cognizance of events and
developments subsequent to the institution of the
proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both
sides are scrupulously obeyed."
25. Thus it is clear that by the subsequent event if
the original proceeding has become infructuous,
ex debito justitiae, it will be the duty of the court
to take such action as is necessary in the interest
of justice which includes disposing of infructuous
litigation. For the said purpose it will be open to
the parties concerned to make an application
under Section 151 of CPC to bring to the notice of
the court the facts and circumstances which have
made the pending litigation infructuous. Of
course, when such an application is made, the
court will enquire into the alleged facts and
circumstances to find out whether the pending
litigation has in fact become infructuous or not.

- 44 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


31.For the reasons stated above, we are of the
opinion that continuation of a suit which has
become infructuous by disappearance of the
cause of action would amount to an abuse of the
process of the court and interest of justice
requires such suit should be disposed of as having
become infructuous. The application under
Section 151 of CPC in this regard is
maintainable.”

15
iv. R.N Gosain Vs. Yashpal Dhir , he relied on
paragraph Nos.10 and 13, which read as under:
“10. Law does not permit a person to both
approbate and reprobate. This principle is based
on the doctrine of election which postulates that
no party can accept and reject the same
instrument and that "a person cannot say at one
time that a transaction is valid any thereby obtain
some advantage, to which he could only be
entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then
turn round and say it is void for the purpose of
securing some other advantage". [See:
Verschures Creameries Ltd. v. Hull and
Netherlands Steamship Co. Ltd., (1921) 2 R.B.
608, at p.612, Scrutton, L.J]. According to
Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn.,Vol. 16,
"after taking an advantage under an order (for
example for the payment of costs) a party may be
precluded from saying that it is invalid and asking
to set it aside". (para 1508).
13. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the
petitioner, having given an undertaking in
pursuance to the directions given by the High
Court in the Judgment dated March 6, 1992, and
having availed the protection from eviction on the
basis of the said undertaking, cannot be
permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 136 of the Constitution and assail
the said judgment of the High Court. In that view
of the matter, we do not consider it necessary to

15
(1992) 4 SCC 683

- 45 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


deal with the submissions urged by Dr. Singhvi
that the respondent, being an employee of the
University at the time of his retirement, was not a
'specified landlord' under section 2(hh) of the
Act.”

16
v. Shephali Chakraborty Vs. State of West Bengal
, he
relied on paragraph Nos.10, 12 and 14, which read as
under:
“10. The doctrine of parens patriae, translates to
“parent of the nation”, and emanates from the
idea that the State bears a moral and legal
responsibility towards those who are incapable of
safeguarding their own interests. It emerges at
the intersection of several strands of political and
legal theory that challenge a purely formal
conception of autonomy. In the liberal tradition,
John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty [ John Stuart Mill,
On Liberty, John W. Parker and Son (1859).]
famously articulated the harm principle, arguing
that State interference with individual liberty is
generally unjustified except to prevent harm to
others. Crucially, however, Mill expressly
excluded children and persons lacking full
rational capacity from the scope of this principle,
recognising that autonomy presupposes capacity.
This implicit exception opens normative space for
protective intervention. More recently, Martha
Albertson Fineman [ Robert W. Woodruff
Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law,
Georgia, USA] through works such as The
Autonomy Myth: A Theory of Dependency [
Martha Albertson Fineman, The Autonomy Myth: A
Theory of Dependency, The New Press (2004)]
and The Vulnerable Subject [ Martha Albertson
Fineman, “The Vulnerable Subject”, 20 Yale
Journal of Law and Feminism 1 (2008)] , has
reframed the debate entirely by arguing that
vulnerability is a universal and enduring feature

16
2026 SCC Online SC 1064

- 46 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


of the human condition, and that the State has an
affirmative obligation to design institutions that
respond to this vulnerability. Here itself we may
take note of the fact that in Indian classical
tradition this doctrine was well established. We
may only take one example as to what Kautilya
has said: The king shall provide the orphans
(bála), the aged, the infirm, the afflicted, and the
helpless with maintenance. He shall also provide
subsistence to helpless women when they are
carrying and also to the children they give birth
to. Elders among the villagers shall improve the
property of bereaved minors till the latter attain
their age; so also the property of Gods.
[Kautilya's Arthashastra, translated by R.
Shamasastry].
In the pages of history, it is found that this
responsibility vested in the English Crown, which
was regarded as the ultimate guardian of infants
and persons of unsound mind or mental
incapacity. Eventually, this function came to be in
the domain of the courts where the modus
operandi was not the usual adversarial method
and instead, a continuing and supervisory
jurisdiction, informed by considerations of
welfare rather than strict legal entitlement. It is
this equitable conception of judicial responsibility
that travelled into colonial legal systems,
including India, and continues to inform modern
constitutional and statutory frameworks.
In Annie Besant v. G. Narayaniah [Annie Besant v.
G. Narayaniah, 1914 SCC OnLine PC 40] , it was
made clear that in matters concerning minors,
Courts do not enforce parental or proprietary
rights but act solely to secure the welfare of the
child. This reasoning was reinforced decades later
in McKee v. McKee [McKee v. McKee, 1951 AC
352] where the Privy Council held that a court
exercising jurisdiction over a child cannot
abdicate its responsibility by mechanically
enforcing foreign custody orders. The decisive
consideration, irrespective of comity or prior
determinations, is the welfare and happiness of
the child. These decisions illustrate the core
parens patriae feature: the Court's obligation is

- 47 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


independent, non-deferential, and welfare-
centric.
Post independence, this doctrine has acquired
constitutional significance. The expansive
interpretation of Article 21, read with Article
15(3), are substantive instances of the
commitment to protection of dignity,
development, and care. The Court's authority to
do so is not a creation of statute but emanates
from its constitutional role in giving practical
meaning to fundamental rights where
vulnerability undermines autonomy.

12. Considering all the above examples, a clear
pattern can be discernible. Authority, held
privately of whatever nature is never absolute.
“Welfare” supersedes all else as the governing
standard. Courts and statutory bodies do not
merely adjudicate disputes; they assume
responsibility. Philosophy, constitutional values,
common law tradition, and statutory provisions
show that parens patriae is not a doctrine of
narrow application, but an important tool to
protect interests wherever vulnerability displaces
agency.
14. In such a case as the present one, at the core
of the Court’s duty is the responsibility to
safeguard the welfare of the minor, a principle
that goes beyond consent or convenience. While
the approval of a guardian may indicate familial
agreement which is well established to be a
power of limited nature. In Hunooman Persaud
Panday v. Mussumat Babooee Munraj
Koonweree30, the Privy Council observed: “…The
power of the Manager for an infant heir to charge
an estate not his own, is, under the Hindoo law, a
limited and qualified power. It can only be
exercised rightly in a case of need, or for the
benefit of the estate. But where, in the particular
instance, the charge is one that a prudent owner
would make, in order to benefit the estate, the
bona fide lender is not affected by the precedent
mismanagement of the estate. The actual
pressure on the estate, the danger to be averted,
or the benefit to be conferred upon it, in the

- 48 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


particular instance, is the thing to be regarded…”.
It cannot replace the Court’s independent
assessment of the minor’s interests. The Court
concerned needs to meticulously examine
whether any proposed arrangement could
compromise the child’s present or future rights,
taking into account that the minor cannot fully
comprehend or appreciate the consequences of
such transactions. The best interest of the child is
not passive consideration but a vigorous principle
that requires foresight, caution, and meticulous
1856 SCC OnLine PC 7 scrutiny in every matter
affecting the minor’s property-‘for an evident
advantage to the minor’.
In assessing the merits of any transaction, the
Court must evaluate the likely advantages against
the risks. It must determine whether the minor
will receive benefits that are secure, measurable
and enforceable. At the same time, it must remain
vigilant to possible negative effects such as
diminution of value, delay in realization of
benefits, or exposure to ventures that could
prejudice the minor’s undivided share. This
evaluation of risk and benefit ensures that
sanction of any arrangement is on the basis of
child's genuine welfare properly balanced against
convenience of adult co-owners.
Even where a guardian consents to the
arrangement, as in this case, the Court must
ensure that adequate safeguards are in place to
protect the minor’s interests. Such safeguards are
not intended to restrict the legitimate rights of
adult co-owners but to preserve the minor’s stake
in the property in a manner.
At the same time, the Court should be aware that
not only the child in question but also adult co-
owners possess lawful rights to derive reasonable
benefit from the property. The presence of a
minor should not unduly limit the ability of adults
to engage in productive or economically beneficial
transactions. The task of the Court is to reconcile
these interests carefully, enabling everyone
including adults to utilize the property in ways
that do not undermine or impair the minor’s
security or future options.”

- 49 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025



Relying on the above judgments learned Senior Counsel
submits that the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

16. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel
representing the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel representing the respondent, perused the
entire material on record.

THE APPROACH OF COURTS IN MATTERS CONCERNING
CHILDREN :
7 Before examining the rival contention, it is
necessary to consider how the approach of a court must be
while deciding matters concerning children. Matrimonial
proceedings may be adversarial in nature, with each spouse
asserting rights and alleging misconduct against the other. A
dispute concerning a child, however, cannot be approached in
the same manner. The child is not responsible for the
differences between the parents and cannot be made to suffer
their consequences. In deciding permanent/temporary custody
of the child, the Court is not concerned with determining which
parent has a superior claim. The inquiry must be directed

- 50 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


towards identifying the arrangement that best serves the child's
welfare. Custody is neither a reward for one parent nor a
punishment for the other. It is a responsibility entrusted to the
parent in accordance with the child's needs. In Gaurav
Nagpal’s case referred supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration and
cannot be measured solely in terms of financial resources or
physical comforts. In Mausami Moitra’s case referred supra,
It was reiterated that no fixed formula can govern custody
disputes and that the child's circumstances must determine the
appropriate arrangement. A parent may be financially secure,
possess a suitable residence, and be willing to provide the best
educational facilities. These are relevant considerations, but
they do not necessarily establish that a change of custody
would benefit the child. The emotional relationship developed
with the primary caregiver, continuity of care, and the
consequences of disturbing the existing arrangement are
equally important. The court must also recognize that parental
separation does not diminish the child's need for the love and
companionship of both parents. The court's responsibility is to

- 51 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


ensure that the child does not become an instrument of the
matrimonial conflict and that the arrangements made enable
the child to maintain a meaningful relationship with both.
“Whether the Family Court granted
relief which was not sought by the

mother?”
18. The first objection raised by the petitioner concerns
the scope of the application that is filed by the mother.
According to the father, the Family Court could not have
permitted relocation when the mother had not specifically
sought for such a relief. Ordinarily, a court is required to decide
the dispute within the framework of the pleadings and the relief
sought. The importance of pleadings cannot be understated,
since they inform the opposite party of the case that has to be
met. However, whether a particular relief has been sought
cannot always be determined by isolating the prayer clause
from the remaining contents of the application. In the present
case, the mother sought delivery of the original passport of the
minor child and the father’s consent for obtaining a visa to the
United Kingdom and the necessary co-operation to enable her
to take the child along with her. The purpose for which these

- 52 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


directions were sought was expressly disclosed. The application
was not merely for obtaining a passport as an identity
document or for undertaking an unspecified journey. The
mother intended to take the child to the United Kingdom,
where she proposes to reside and work. The father was
therefore aware that the application concerned the child's
proposed movement to the United Kingdom to reside with the
mother. Indeed, his objections concerning are the child's
removal from India, the consequences of living abroad, and the
possible impairment of his parental relationship demonstrate
that the substance of the controversy was understood and
contested by him. In these circumstances, the absence of a
separately worded prayer seeking permission for relocation
cannot be treated as decisive. The Court must examine the
relief in substance and not merely the terminology employed by
the applicant. Particularly in matters concerning the children. A
direction to furnish consent for a visa so as to enable the child
to accompany the mother abroad necessarily required the court
to consider that such movement would serve the child's
welfare. Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 empowers

- 53 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


the court, in proceedings under the Act, to pass interim orders
concerning the custody, maintenance, and education of minor
children. The provision recognizes the continuing responsibility
of the matrimonial court to make arrangements appropriate to
the child's circumstances. Such jurisdiction is not to be
exercised without regard to the pleadings, but neither can it be
reduced to a mechanical interpretation of the words used in the
prayer clause. A distinction must be maintained between
granting wholly new relief of which the opposite party had no
notice and granting an order that gives effect to the very
purpose for which the application was filed. In the former
situation, considerations of procedural fairness may arise. In
the latter, the Court is not exceeding its jurisdiction merely
because it expresses the operative relief in terms more
appropriate to the circumstances.
19. The learned counsel for the father has relied upon
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mrs.Akella
Lalitha’s case referred supra wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court disapproved the grant of a direction concerning the
surname of a minor child though no such relief had been

- 54 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


sought. The principle laid down is that a court cannot grant
relief outside the pleadings, thereby depriving the opposing
party of an opportunity to oppose it. The said decision is
distinguishable. In Mrs.Akella Lalitha’s case referred supra,
the direction concerning the surname was an independent relief
that had not been part of the controversy. In the present case,
the respondent's application expressly sought to enable the
child to accompany her to the United Kingdom. The father
opposed the proposal, and the Family Court decided the
question arising from it. No new controversy was introduced
without notice to the father. The decision in Mrs. Ritika
Sharan’s case referred supra is also relevant. In that case, the
mother sought the return of the child's passport and
subsequently relocated to Singapore for employment. The
Supreme Court, exercising the power under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, considered the substantive question of
the child's welfare, notwithstanding the procedural objection
raised in the proceedings, and permitted the child to
accompany the mother. While the power exercised by the
Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of

- 55 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


India stands on a distinct constitutional footing, the decision
reinforces the need to identify the real controversy affecting the
child. In the present case, the Family Court derives its
jurisdiction from Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, and the
proposed relocation was already the subject of the application
and the father’s objection. The mother's application clearly
discloses the purpose of taking the child to the United Kingdom.
The father opposed that proposal on its merits. The Family
Court was consequently required to decide whether the child
could accompany the mother. The determination of that
question cannot be characterized as granting an altogether
unclaimed relief. This Court therefore finds no merit in the
father's contention that the order is liable to be interfered with
merely because the mother did not incorporate an independent
prayer using the expression relocation.
“Whether the mother's departure to the
United Kingdom, leaving the child
temporarily with the maternal
grandfather/aunt, constitute sufficient

grounds to transfer custody to the father?”

- 56 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


20. The mother has been the child's primary caregiver.
Her intention was to take the child with her, for which she
approached the Family Court seeking the necessary directions.
However, because the travel formalities could not be completed
before she was required to leave India, the child was
temporarily entrusted to the maternal grandfather. The father
seeks to rely on the mother's physical absence or on a change
of circumstances warranting a transfer of custody. Such a
submission overlooks why the child continued to remain in
India. The mother did not choose to leave the child behind as a
permanent arrangement. She approached the court precisely
because she wanted the child to accompany her. Where a
parent seeks judicial assistance to facilitate the child's travel
and, during the pendency of that request, is required to
proceed abroad to fulfill professional commitments, the
temporary separation cannot, without anything more, be
treated as abandonment of parental responsibility. The
assistance rendered by a grandparent does not, by itself,
amount to a transfer of custody. In Mrs. Ritika Sharan’s case
referred supra the Hon'ble Apex Court considered substantially

- 57 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


similar question. The mother was employed in Singapore while
the child remained in Bangalore under the care of the maternal
grandparents. The court held that the assistance provided by
the grandparents did not amount to transfer of custody from
the mother to them and permitted the child to accompany the
mother.
21. Learned counsel for the father has also relied on,
Komal Krishan Arora's case referred supra, wherein interim
custody of a minor child residing with her maternal grandfather
was entrusted to the father. However, the circumstances in that
case are materially different. The mother had taken the
children abroad without informing the father, and the
proceeding disclosed serious issues concerning concealment of
their whereabouts, compliance with judicial directions, and the
father's access to the children. In those circumstances, the
Supreme Court found the father's interim custody appropriate.
The said decision does not lay down that custody must
necessarily be transferred to the father whenever the mother
resides abroad and the child temporarily remains with
grandparents. In the present case, the mother had disclosed

- 58 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


her intention to take the child abroad and sought the necessary
directions from the Family Court. The child remained in India
because the travel formalities were incomplete. The father
contends that he is capable of taking care of the child and that
his willingness to share parental responsibility is not in doubt.
However, the question is not whether he can provide care but
whether the circumstances warrant displacing the existing
primary caregiver. The mother's temporary absence, arising
from the circumstances noticed above, does not establish such
a necessity. The mother's case is that the delay in completing
the formalities prevented the child from accompanying her. The
father was undoubtedly entitled to raise a genuine objection
before the Family Court. Nevertheless, the delay occasioned in
completing the travel formalities cannot, by itself, be a ground
to transfer custody. To hold otherwise would allow
circumstances arising during the litigation to determine custody
without an independent assessment of the child's welfare. The
Family Court was therefore justified in declining to transfer
custody merely because the child was temporarily residing with
the maternal grandfather/aunt.

- 59 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


MOTHER'S RIGHT TO PURSUE HER PROFESSION AND THE
PROPOSED RELOCATION:
22. The mother's decision to pursue her professional
career in the United Kingdom, where she is an ophthalmologist,
must be considered in the light of her responsibility towards the
child. Marriage and motherhood do not deprive a woman of the
freedom to pursue professional opportunities or require her to
remain confined to a particular place. A mother who has been
raising a child cannot be compelled to choose between retaining
custody and pursuing her profession merely because the
opportunity available to her is in another country. Such an
approach rests on the assumption that professional
advancement is inconsistent with responsible motherhood. The
constitutional guarantees of equality and professional liberty do
not support such an assumption. Where the proposed
relocation affects the relationship with the other parent, the
court must examine the arrangements for the child's care,
education, and emotional well-being. The mother's professional
interests are relevant, but the child's welfare remains the
governing consideration.

- 60 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


23. In Vikram Vir Vohra’s case referred supra, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the proposed relocation of a
child to Australia with the mother and declined to interfere with
the order permitting the relocation. The ratio recognizes that
custody arrangements must respond to changes in
circumstances, subject always to the welfare of the child. In the
present case, the mother seeks to continue her professional
career while retaining the child's care. Sufficient material has
not been placed before the Court to establish that she is
incapable of providing a suitable environment in the United
Kingdom or that the child's residence with her would be
detrimental to the child's welfare. The father had relied on the
fact of taking admission of the child in a school where English is
not a medium of instruction and relocation to a foreign country
is not in the interest of the child. The mother had been taking
care of the child from 2019 and filed an affidavit before this
Court, furnishing all details of her employment and child’s
education. This Court do not find any reason to disbelieve any
of those aspects as stated before this Court. The fact that the
father resides in India does not, by itself, create a superior

- 61 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


claim to custody. Residence in India or abroad is not a measure
of parents' suitability. The Family Court's decision permitting
the child to accompany the mother, therefore, does not call for
interference.
THE CHILD'S PREFERENCE AND THE APPREHENSION OF
PARENTAL ALIENATION:

24. The father had expressed concern that relocating to
the United Kingdom would result in parental alienation.
However, geographical separation and parental alienation are
not synonymous. The fact that the child resides with one parent
in another country does not, by itself, establish that the other
parent is being excluded from the child's life. In Vivek Singh’s
case referred supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the
adverse consequences of parental alienation. Subsequently,
17
Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh v. Sugandhi Aggarwal , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court cautioned that such an allegation must
be examined in the light of identifiable conduct and cannot be
presumed merely because the parents are involved in a custody
dispute. In the present case, the father has expressed

17
2024 INSC 397

- 62 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


apprehension about possible future alienation. No specific
conduct on the mother's part has been established to justify
such a stand. The child's express preference is also relevant.
The child wishes to accompany the mother to the United
Kingdom while spending holidays with the father. These wishes
are not contradictory. They reflect the child's desire to maintain
a relationship with both parents. A child should not be placed in
a position where affection for one parent is perceived as
rejection of the other. A child's preference, depending on age
and maturity, is a relevant consideration, though not
conclusive. In the present case, the child's wishes are
consistent with an arrangement that preserves a relationship
with both parents. The physical distance arising from relocation
may require adjustments to the manner in which parenting
time is exercised. Regular communication arrangements during
the school vacation can ensure that the father continues to play
a meaningful role in the child's upbringing. A parent does not
become a visitor in a child's life merely because the child
primarily resides with the other parent. In these circumstances,
apprehension of parental alienation cannot be accepted as a

- 63 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


ground to prevent relocation. The child's relationship with the
father can be protected through appropriate parenting
arrangements.
SCOPE OF INTERFERENCE:

25. The orders under challenge have been passed upon
consideration of the applications filed by both parents. The
Family Court had permitted the child to accompany with mother
and declined to disturb the existing custody arrangement. The
judgments relied upon by the parties demonstrate that custody
disputes are fact-sensitive. Hence, neither the father's
willingness to assume responsibility nor the mother's
professional relocation can be treated as independently
decisive. The outcome must follow from the circumstances
concerning the child. The petitioner has not established that the
Family Court acted beyond its jurisdiction, ignored any material
circumstances, or applied an incorrect legal principle. This
Court, exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, does not find any reason to interfere.
In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following:

- 64 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


ORDER

i. W.P.No.38415/2025 is dismissed as
infructuous.


ii. W.P.No.14682/2026 is dismissed .


iii. WP.No.37759/2025 is disposed of with
the following directions:


a. The mother is permitted to take the
minor child along with her to the United
Kingdom.


b. The mother shall facilitate regular
communication between the father and
the child through telephone and video
calls, at mutually convenient times,
having regard to the child's education
schedule and the difference in time
zones, at least for 20 minutes in a day.


c. The father shall be entitled to meaningful
parenting time with the child during
school holidays. Twice in a year during
the child’s holidays, the mother shall
send the boy to India and the boy shall
spend 75% of the vacation with the
father. If the father wants to go to
United Kingdom and meet the child in
the vacation, mother shall co-operate

- 65 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60062
WP No. 37759 of 2025
C/W WP No. 38415 of 2025
WP No. 14682 of 2026


CNR: KAHC010803022025


and handover the custody i.e., for 75%
of the holidays.


d. Both the parents shall co-cooperate in
preserving the child's relationship with
other parent and refrain from conduct
intended to undermine the relationship.


e. The custody and parenting arrangements
shall remain subject to modification by
the competent court, if subsequent
circumstances so warrant having regard
to the welfare of the child.



iv. All I.As in these petitions shall stand closed.



SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
PKN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3
MR