1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
WRIT PETITION No.16293/2018 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN :
PREETHI K. RAO
W/O. VIKRAM SAMANTH,
AGED 36 YEARS,
R/A FLAT NO. J-104,
NANDI WOODS APARTMENTS ,
OFF BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
TEJASWINI NAGAR PHASE 2,
BANGALORE – 560 076. … PETITIONER
(BY SMT. LAKSHMY IYENGAR, ADV.)
AND:
VIKRAM SAMANTH
S/O. SADANANDA SAMANTH,
AGED 38 YEARS,
R/A FLAT NO P1 304,
SNN RAJ SERENITY APARTMENTS,
BEGUR KOPPA ROAD,
BANGALORE – 560 068. … RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. LAILA KHAN, ADV. FOR
SRI L. GOVINDRAJ, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
ORDER DATED 27.03.2018 IN GWC NO.40/2018 BEFORE THE
4TH ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO HAVE THE CUSTODY OF
THEIR CHILD ‘GAUTHAM’ ON SUNDAY BETWEEN 8 A.M TO
SUNDAY 7 P.M.
2
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
ORDER
Ms. Preeti K. Rao, the petitioner, has challenged the
legality of the order dated 27.03.2018, whereby the learned
Family Court has granted the interim custody of the minor
son, Gautham, from every Saturday morning, 11.00 a.m., till
Sunday evening, 6.00 p.m., without affecting the school
hours of the child.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner
and the respondent were married on 31.05.2007, in
accordance with the Hindu rites and customs. On
02.12.2012, they were blessed with Gautham. However, due
to differences that arose between the parties, the couple
separated. Eventually, on 29.01.2018, the petitioner filed a
divorce petition against the respondent. She has also filed a
petition under Section 7 and 17 of the Guardians and Wards
Act, 1890, seeking Gautham’s custody. In the custody case,
the respondent appeared, and filed an application seeking
overnight custody of Gautham every weekend, from
3
9.00 a.m., of Saturday till 7.00 p.m., of Sunday. The
petitioner filed her objections to the said application.
However, after hearing both the parties, by the impugned
order dated 27.03.2015, the learned Family Court has
granted the interim custody as mentioned above. Hence,
this petition before this court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner would be satisfied, if the impugned order
were merely modified by this court. Instead of granting
interim custody of the child over the weekend to the
respondent, the learned counsel has suggested, it would be
fairer if the interim custody of the child would be given every
other week end to the respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner pleads that
since the petitioner is also a working woman, she does not
have sufficient time to spend with the child during the
weekdays. However, during the weekend, she will be in a
position to spend more time with the child. Therefore, the
proposal made by her.
4
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent has suggested that perhaps more time should be
given to the respondent to spend time with his son. But, as
the respondent has not challenged the legal validity, or
modification of the impugned order, the request made by the
respondent cannot be accepted by this court.
6. Considering the fact that Gautham is a five year old
child, considering the fact that the petitioner is a working
woman, obviously, she would not be in a position to spend
quality time with the child during the weekdays.
Considering the fact that the child has a right to be equally
showered with the love and affection of both the parents, this
court modifies the impugned order to the limited extent that
while the petitioner shall have the interim custody of the
child on 5th and 6th May, 2018, the respondent shall have
the interim custody of the child on 12th and 13th May, 2018,
and on alternate weekends. The parties will have custody of
the child on alternative weekends as mentioned above.
5
7. With these changes, the impugned order stands
modified. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Np/-
