SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Preethi K Rao vs Vikram Samanth on 26 April, 2018

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/-

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation