1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JULY 2019

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

WRIT PETITION NO.24997 OF 2019 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:
MR DEBOJYOTI DAS
S/O SHRI DIPESH RANJAN DAS
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/A 403 FESTOON PRIMROSE
APARTMENTS 5BC 950 2ND BLOCK
HRBR LAYOUT EXTENSION
(OFF: BABUSAPLAYA)
BANGALORE – 560 043
… PETITIONER
(By MR. SUNIL S CHOUDHARI, ADV.)

AND:
MRS VISHAKHA DAS
W/O MR DEBOJYOTHI DAS
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
B-904 PLAMA HEIGHTS APARTMENTS
230 HENNUR MAIN ROAD
BESIDE MANDOVI MOTORS
OPP: JAIN HEIGHTS
BANGALORE – 560 043
… RESPONDENT
(By MR. H V PRAVEEN GOWDA, ADV.)
—

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.02.2019 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT BANGALORE VIDE ANNX-B,
PAGE NO.84-85, IN MC 4746/2015 C/W G WC 127/2017, FOR
THE WELFARE OF THE MINOR CHILD; AND ETC.
2

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

Mr.Sunil S.Choudhari, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

Mr.H.V.Praveen Gowda, learned counsel for the

respondent.

2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With

consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same

is heard finally.

3. In this petition under SectionArticle 227 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the

validity of the order dated 08.02.2019 passed by the

Family Court by which the Family Court has handed

over the custody of the child namely Aarav who is aged

about 10 years to the mother and has granted visitation

rights to the father namely the petitioner.
3

4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the petition

briefly stated are that respondent has filed a petition

under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954

seeking dissolution of the marriage which has been

registered as M.C.No.4746/2015. The father, namely

the petitioner has filed a proceeding under the Guardian

and SectionWards Act, 1890 which has been registered as G

and WC No.127/2017. In the proceeding initiated by

the respondent – wife under the SectionSpecial Marriage Act,

the Family Court passed an order dated 29.10.2015 by

which the petitioner namely the father was restrained

from interfering with the custody of the minor child with

the mother but was granted the visitation rights.

During the week ends, the petitioner who is the father

of the child used to take the custody of the child. It is

the case of the respondent that on 03.02.2019, the

custody of the child was given to the petitioner and his

custody was supposed to be handed over to the

respondent, however the petitioner did not handover

the custody of the child. Thereupon, the Family Court,
4

by an order dated 07.02.2019, directed the custody of

the child to be handed over to the respondent – mother

with a direction to produce the child on 08.02.2019.

5. In pursuance of the aforesaid order when the

child was produced on 08.02.2019, the child namely

Aarav expressed his desire to stay with the petitioner –

father. However, the Family Court, by impugned order

dated 08.02.2019, has handed over the custody of the

child namely Aarav to the respondent – mother contrary

to the wish of the minor child. In the aforesaid factual

background, the petitioner has approached this Court.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties

at length. It is evident that a Bench of this Court had

passed an interim order on 14.06.2019. It is not in

dispute that the child is residing with the petitioner –

father since 14.05.2019 and the respondent – wife has

been exercising visitation rights. The child is aged

about 10 years and is a student of class V. It is also
5

brought to the notice of the Court that in G and W.C.

proceeding namely case No.127/2017, the petitioner –

father has filed an application seeking interim custody of

the child which is pending before the Family Court.

7. In view of the aforesaid submissions and taking

into account the fact that the child is staying with the

petitioner – father since 14.05.2019 and the interim

order passed by this Court is operating since

14.06.2019 as well as the fact that the application

seeking interim custody filed by the petitioner is

pending consideration before the Family Court, I deem

it appropriate to dispose of this petition with a direction

to the Family Court to decide the application for interim

custody of the child filed by the petitioner by a speaking

order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the

parties within three weeks from the date of receipt of

certified copy of the order passed today. Till the

application filed by petitioner seeking interim custody is

decided, interim arrangement with regard to the
6

visitation rights made by this Court from time to time

shall also continue.

8. At this stage, learned counsel for the

respondent submitted that respondent – mother be

allowed to speak to the child between 6 p.m. to 10 p.m.

on telephone. To the aforesaid prayer, learned counsel

for the petitioner has submitted that he has no

objection. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the

parties, the respondent is permitted to speak to the

child on telephone between 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. everyday.

9. At this stage, the attention of the Family Court

is invited to the Karnataka (Case Flow Management in

Sub-ordinate Courts) Rules, 2005 which provides that

the Family Court must decide the proceeding

expeditiously preferably within one year. The petition

seeking dissolution of marriage is pending since 2015

and the proceeding in G and WC is pending since 2017.

Therefore, the Family Court shall make an endeavour to
7

dispose of the proceeding in view of the provisions

contained in the aforesaid Rules, expeditiously.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed

any opinion on the merits.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV