Dismissed

Sri.H. Prasanna v. Smt. Priyanka Ramu

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2021WP/47787/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging an interim order granting visitation rights. The Court held that the trial court could not decide absolute custody in an interim application absent a main petition and left the issue for the appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of without making observations on the merits; all contentions left open to seek appropriate relief.

Sri.H. Prasanna Vs Smt. Priyanka Ramu — Child Custody and Guardianship | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.47787 OF 2017 (GM-FC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.H. PRASANNA S/O N HULIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS PRESENTLY R/AT NO.27 ARCHANA HOUSE, 2ND CROSS WIDIA LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 040.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS BHAT, ADV. )

¶10

AND

¶11

SMT. PRIYANKA RAMU W/O H PRASANNA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O 451/A THOTADA HATTI ROAD 1ST CROSS, K.R.MOHALLA MYSORE, KARNATAKA PRESENTLY WORKING AS SENIOR SOFTWARE ENGINEER HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE SY NO.192,WHITEFIELD ROAD MAHADEVAPURA, BANGALORE-560 048.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. R.D.PANCHAMI, ADV. )

¶14

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 QUASH THE ORDER ON IA.NO.3 PASSED IN M.C.NO.4448/2016 AT ANNEX-E DATED:16.09.2017, PASSED ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION SEEKING CUSTODY OF THE SON UNDER SECTION 26 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION, AND GRANT CUSTODY OF THE MINOR SON TO THE PETITIONER.

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on an application preferred by him under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, praying for the custody of the minor son, who is aged about 4 years and 5 months and presently he is aged about 7 years and 8 months. The court below appreciating the contentions and pleadings of the petitioner was pleased to grant visitation rights to him.

¶20

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court without considering the fact

¶21

¶22

that the mother of the child was not properly looking after the child has granted only visiting rights to the petitioner. That he is dissatisfied with the partial relief and he desires that the custody be handed over to him.

¶23

As to whether he is entitled for absolute or permanent custody of the child or not is an issue that has to be gone into by the trial court and the Family Court could not have entered upon that issue and decided the same in an interim application in the absence of any serious allegation prima facie disentitling the mother to have custody of the child.

¶24

It is submitted that the main petition is listed for arguments. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the issue be left open for the parties to agitate the same before the appropriate forum in a manner known to law.

¶25

In view of the above, instant petition is disposed of without making observation on the merits of the

¶26

¶27

contentions. All the contentions are left open to seek

¶28

appropriate relief in a manner known to law.

¶29

No order as to costs.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

Mkm

Sri.H. Prasanna v. Smt. Priyanka Ramu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.H. Prasanna v. Smt. Priyanka Ramu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Jagadish Kumar Vs the Deputy Commissioner & Chairman

Karnataka State Certified Seed Producers Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Ramesh. K Vs M/S. National Trust

Sri P S Ajay Kumar Vs Deputy Commissioner

V. Lakshman Vs Smt. R. Sridevi

Smt Devammaji @ Reena Vs Akshaya a S