MRS MANOSHI SHUVENDU ROY, vs MR PALECANDA VARUN DEVIAH S/O. PALECANDA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17455-DB
MFA No. 103016 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020180622026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE USHARANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103016 OF 2026 (GW)
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. MANOSHI SHUVENDU ROY,
W/O. PALECANDA VARUN DEVIAH,
AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. 602, SEA MIST CHS,
ADARSH NAGAR, MUMBAI-400030
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT Y-602,
KONARK POORAM HOUSING SOCIETY
KONDHWA, PUNE-411048
2. MR. PALECANDA VEER DEVIAH MEHTA
S/O. PALECANDA VARUN DEVIAH,
AGE. 14 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. 602, SEA MIST CHS,
ADARSH NAGAR, MUMBAI-400030
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT Y-602,
KONARK POORAM HOUSING SOCIETY,
KONDHWA, PUNE-411048
(REPRESENTED THROUGH MINOR GUARDIAN
MOTHER / APPELLANT NO.1 –
MRS. MANOSHI SUVENDU ROY
W/O. PALECANDA VARUN DEVIAH)
…APPELLANTS
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Date: 2026.11.05
14:26:23 +0530
(BY SRI. CHETAN T LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE)
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17455-DB
MFA No. 103016 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020180622026
AND:
MR. PALECANDA VARUN DEVIAH S/O. PALECANDA
AGE. 45 YEARS,
OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. B.C. NO.165,
NEAR SHARQUT PARK,
CAMP, BELAGAVI-590001
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VEERESH R. BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.47(C) OF THE GUARDIANS AND
WARDS ACT, 1890, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE PRESENT
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER DATED 11.09.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I
ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI IN G AND
WC NO.03/2024 AND DISMISS THE PETITION FILED BY
RESPONDENT IN G AND WC NO.03/2024 UNDER THE RELEVANT
PROVISIONS OF THE GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT 1890 AND
CONFIRM/CONTINUE THE CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILD, WITH
THE APPELLANT-MOTHER, SUBJECT TO SUCH APPROPRIATE
VISITATION/ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT
AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE WELFARE AND BEST
INTERESTS OF THE MINOR CHILD AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE USHARANI
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17455-DB
MFA No. 103016 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020180622026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN)
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.09.2026 passed in
G & WC No.3/2024 by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Family Court’,
for short), the respondent – mother therein has preferred this
appeal.
2. Appellant and respondent are husband and wife and
they have a son by name Palecanda Veer Deviah Mehta
aged about 14 years. Due to various reasons, the husband and
wife are not living together. The husband is living in Belagavi
and the wife is living with her parents in Pune. While leaving
from the matrimonial home, the wife took their son along with
her on the pretext of attending a family function and never
returned. Thereafter, the differences between husband and wife
escalated, resulting in the wife filing a maintenance petition,
wherein it is submitted that she has claimed a sum of
₹3,00,000/- as monthly maintenance on the ground that her
husband is very well to do. The differences between husband
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17455-DB
MFA No. 103016 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020180622026
and wife also resulted in the husband preferring G & WC
No.3/2024.
3. After examining the pleadings and the evidence let
in and also interacting with the child, the Family Court in G &
WC No.3/2024 came to the conclusion that both the parents
have taken good care of the child. However, as per the
evidence let in by the wife, the Court believed that her monthly
income is around ₹50,000/-, whereas the family business of the
husband is having a turnover of about ₹120 crores per year
and they also have an income of about ₹1,00,00,000/- per year
from the coffee estate.
4. The Family Court also observed that the child while
he was with the father was living in a palatial house at Belagavi
having all facilities and he used to travel extensively including
to foreign countries.
5. After appreciating all the evidence let in, the Family
Court, taking into consideration the age of the child being 14
years, and that the richness of the father vis-à-vis the mother
and the fact that neither the father nor the mother showed any
lapses in taking care of the child held that in the interest of the
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17455-DB
MFA No. 103016 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020180622026
child, he should reside with the father with parenting rights
being given to the mother. The Family Court, under the
circumstances, has passed the following order:
“ORDER
The petition filed under Section 25 and 12 of the
Guardian's and Wards Act and Section 8 of the Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act by the petitioner is
allowed.
The respondent No.1 is hereby directed to
handover the custody of the minor respondent No.2 of
his person to the petitioner within one month at the
residence of the petitioner, which is also ordinary place
of residence of the minor, or in any neutral place at
Belagavi after having consultation with the petitioner.
However, the respondent No.1 is entitled for
parenting time to meet the minor respondent No.2 on
every Saturday and Sunday in between 3 p.m. to 9
p.m. (subject to his school timing on Saturday) at any
mutually consented neutral place in Belagavi.
The respondent No.1 is entitled for interim
custody of the minor respondent No.2 during first half
of summer, Dasara, winter and other vacations, which
are not less than 10 days in count, of his school to the
extent of 50% of those vacations.
The respondent No.1 is also entitled to have
regular communication with the minor respondent No.2
through phone calls, video calls etc., on every day in
his leisure time. The petitioner is entitled for the same,
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17455-DB
MFA No. 103016 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020180622026
when the minor will be in the interim custody of the
respondent No. 1.
The petitioner and the respondent No.1 may
celebrate the birthday of the child together with mutual
consent in any place of their choice as far as possible. If
the same is not possible, then they shall celebrate the
birthday in terms of alternative years.
Every information of the child relating to his
health, schooling, extra curriculum activities etc., shall
be exchanged between the petitioner and the
respondent No. 1.
The petitioner and the respondent No.1 shall
not indulge in the acts of parenting alienation causing
prejudice in the mind of the child against the other
parent.
The petitioner and the respondent No.1 shall
endeavor towards psychological, social, educational and
over-all growth and development of the child.
Considering the relationship between the
parties, no order as to costs.”
6. The appellant - mother submits that, the interest of
the child requires being in the custody of the mother and not
with the father. It is submitted that since 2024, the child is
residing with the mother and it is appropriate that she
continues to have custody of the child. It is also submitted that
care of the mother is more important to the child than the care
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17455-DB
MFA No. 103016 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020180622026
of the father. It is further submitted that the mother is also
sufficiently earning to a tune of around ₹50,000/- per month
and she can take good care of the child. It is also submitted
that the interest of the child was catered to in the matrimonial
home only because the mother was there and in her absence
the father will not be in a position to care for the child. On the
said ground, it is prayed that the order of the Family Court be
set aside and the custody of the child be granted to the mother.
7. Per contra, the respondent - father justifies the
order passed by the Family Court and prays for dismissal of the
appeal.
8. When the dispute pertains to custody of the child,
interest of the child is paramount and not the rights of the
parents in respect of the child.
9. In the instant case, the pleadings and the evidence
let in establish the fact that both parents have taken good care
of the child. However, the income of the husband is much more
higher than that of the wife. This fact is not disputed by either
of the parties. Though appellant contends that in the
maintenance proceedings the husband has taken a ground that
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17455-DB
MFA No. 103016 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020180622026
his income is only around ₹10,000/- per month, the counsel for
the respondent candidly admits that his income is much much
more than that as is recorded by the Family Court in G & WC
No.3/2024. He submits that the said defence has been taken in
the maintenance petition filed by the wife only in respect of the
said case.
10. The Family Court also has concluded that the child
while living in the matrimonial house was loved and taken care
of by his paternal grandparents also and that he is living in a
palatial house in Belagavi with all facilities which will help him
to grow his personality in all walks of life.
11. Applying the principle of parens patriae and taking
into consideration the best interest of the child under the given
facts and circumstances of the case, the Family Court has
passed the impugned order.
12. The appellant - mother is unable to show why we
have to differ from the conclusions arrived at by the Family
Court based on which the impugned order has been passed.
13. In the course of the arguments, the counsel for
respondent submits that the father will never ever poison the
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17455-DB
MFA No. 103016 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020180622026
mind of the child against the mother. He also has no objection
if the Court were to enhance the duration of the parenting
rights granted in favour of the mother. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i. The order of the Family Court granting
parenting rights to the mother, in respect of
the child, to an extent of 50% of his
vacations, shall stand enhanced to 75% of the
vacations. To that extent, the impugned order
stands modified.
ii. The impugned order in all other respects is
upheld.
iii. If any of the parents were to behave
irresponsibly detrimental to the interest of the
child, liberty is reserved to either of the
parties to seek modification of this order.
iv. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(USHARANI)
JUDGE
KGK /CT:CNB
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 18