Disposed

Sarala Nagraj Rao v. Srinath Keshav

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2022WP/21779/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, the High Court of Karnataka disposed of a petition challenging an interim custody order. The Court directed the Family Court to consider a pending application regarding visitation rights, acknowledging the impugned order had expired, and prevented contempt proceedings concerning the expired order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned petition was disposed of with a direction to the lower court to consider the pending visitation application and a liberty granted regarding contempt proceedings on the expired order.

Sarala Nagraj Rao Vs Srinath Keshav — Child Custody and Guardianship | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 21779 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 21779 OF 2022 (GM-FC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SARALA NAGRAJ RAO, D/O NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, B-4, GREENWOODS APARTMENTS, OPPOSITE PRISTINE PUBLIC SCHOOL, 2^ND MAIN, INDIRANAGAR, 1^ST STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 008.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ARUN GOVINDRAJ., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRINATH KESHAV, S/O. A. R. KESHAV, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.405 A, 1^ST CROSS, NEW DIAGONAL ROAD, JAYANAGAR, 3^RD BLOCK, BANGALORE – 560 011.

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT.LAKSHMY IYENGAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.N.GOWTHAM RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶16

¶17

WP No. 21779 of 2022

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2022 MADE IN G AND WC NO.250/2017 BY THE IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE, ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.,

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 19.10.2022 passed on the application filed seeking 50% of the interim custody of the son, on 09.09.2022. The order so passed reads as follows:

¶22

"Keeping open the hearing and disposal of IA No.XI internal arrangement is made with order for grant of interim custody of minor child Master Reyansh to the petitioner on 24.10.2022 for celebration of the Deepavali festival.

¶23

Respondent is directed to hand over the custody of Master Reyansh to the petitioner on 24.10.2022 after 10 a.m. and the petitioner is directed to return the custody of the minor child to the respondent on 25.10.2022 before 10 a.m.

¶24

¶25

WP No. 21779 of 2022

¶26

Petitioner is directed not to give ill advice about the respondent to the child while exercising the visitation rights and take care of the child by providing all comfortable necessities to the stay and be with the child for the entire period without making to stay alone at time and make the child comfortable stay at his board.

¶27

Both the parties are directed to maintain peace and create friendly atmosphere with the ward while exercising the visitation right."

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on a similar application, an order already had been passed by the concerned Court that the child cannot be permitted for stay overnight on visitation rights, with the father. The said order is passed after speaking to the child and considering the application - I.A.No.11/2022. With the order, the application had spent itself and therefore, the second application was not maintainable.

¶29

On the other hand, learned senior counsel representing the respondent would refute the submission to contend that the said application was considered for grant of visitation rights as interim measure pending consideration of the application and

¶30

¶31

WP No. 21779 of 2022

¶32

would submit that the subsequent application was

¶33

maintainable.

¶34

Both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel for the respondent would accept that the visitation rights in terms of the impugned order was granted only for a particular day i.e., 24.10.2022.

¶35

A submission is made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that on 24.10.2022, the child could not be taken and the child was in fact taken only on 26.10.2022, between 10.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. The learned senior counsel representing the respondent submits that there is gross violation of the order dated 19.02.2022, as the child was to be taken on 24.10.2022, while it was taken on 26.10.2022. Since the date is already over, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the petition with a direction to the concerned Court to consider the application - I.A.No.11/2022, in accordance with law and not in the manner it is decided now.

¶36

¶37

WP No. 21779 of 2022

¶38

The concerned Court is directed to pass appropriate

¶39

orders in accordance with law in the light of the fact that the order dated 19.10.2022 has spent itself or lost its efficacy.

¶40

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at this juncture would submit that if the impugned order is not quashed, it would give liberty to the respondent to initiate contempt proceedings alleging violation of the order dated 19.10.2022, notwithstanding the fact that the father took the child on 26.10.2022.

¶41

Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent would undertake that no contempt proceedings would be initiated on the impugned order that had spent itself.

¶42

In the considered view of this Court, the afore-narrated would suffice for disposal of the petition and the petition is accordingly, stands disposed.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Sarala Nagraj Rao v. Srinath Keshav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarala Nagraj Rao v. Srinath Keshav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kvn Property Holdings Vs the State of Karnataka

Scania Commercial Vehicles India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Doddaraju Vs State of Karnataka

K.G.Thippeswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri v Ramu Vs Bangalore City Co. Operative Bank

Sri Gafar Ahmed Vs the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited