Karnataka High CourtFamily LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

Father Who Had Not Contacted Twins For Over 5 Years Gets Weekend Visits, Not Permanent Custody: Karnataka HC

SRI MOHAMMED ALTAF HUSSAINv.SMT AYESHA BEGUM

Father Who Had Not Contacted Twins For Over 5 Years Gets Weekend Visits, Not Permanent Custody: Karnataka HC. SRI MOHAMMED ALTAF HUSSAIN vs SMT AYESHA BEGUM. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Family Court’s dismissal of the father’s petition for permanent custody warranted appellate interference

The court held

The appeal was allowed in part.

It also directed

The Court declined to grant the father permanent custody but modified the Family Court’s order to give him visitation rights on Saturdays and Sundays from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

The mother was directed to permit him to take the children out during those hours and to return them to her in the evening

01Facts

The appellant-father sought permanent custody of the parties’ twin children under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

pp. 2–5

The respondent-mother opposed the petition, alleging that the appellant had contracted another marriage and had failed to pay court-ordered maintenance.

pp. 2–5

The Family Court dismissed the petition.

pp. 2–5

On appeal under Section 47 of the Act, the High Court considered the appellant’s request for custody and the respondent’s opposition

pp. 2–5

The appellant admitted that he had not made efforts to learn which school or class the children were in, had not established contact with them for more than five years, and had produced no material showing that he had contributed to their maintenance or education

pp. 10–12

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Family Court’s dismissal of the father’s petition for permanent custody warranted appellate interference

p. 8

ii.2. Whether the father should be granted visitation rights notwithstanding the refusal of permanent custody

pp. 12–13

03Law Applied

The Court considered Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, under which the father had sought custody, and Section 47, under which the appeal was brought

p. 2, 8

The Court’s reasoning treated the children’s welfare and care, together with the evidence of each parent’s involvement, as relevant to custody.

pp. 10–13

It also recognised that the children were entitled to the love and affection of both parents

pp. 10–13

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 Section 47Section 25

04Reasoning

The appellant’s employment and ability to meet the children’s expenses did not, by themselves, establish that transferring custody would serve their interests.

pp. 9–12

His prolonged lack of contact, failure to ascertain the children’s school and class, and absence of evidence that he had supported their maintenance or education undermined his claim for permanent custody

pp. 9–12

However, the Court considered that the children should have an opportunity to share their father’s love and affection, and therefore granted visitation rather than permanent custody

pp. 12–13

05Holding

The appeal was allowed in part.

pp. 13–14

The Court declined to grant the father permanent custody but modified the Family Court’s order to give him visitation rights on Saturdays and Sundays from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

pp. 13–14

The mother was directed to permit him to take the children out during those hours and to return them to her in the evening

pp. 13–14
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

SRI MOHAMMED ALTAF HUSSAINvsSMT AYESHA BEGUM

Karnataka High Court · October 06, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment