Partly allowed

Subhash v. Madegowda

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2023MFA/6010/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the trial court's order under the Guardians and Wards Act appointing a paternal grandfather as guardian. While respecting the guardianship, the court granted specific visitation rights and communication access to the challenged maternal grandparents and aunt to maintain contact with the children.

What did the court decide?

Modification of the appointment order to grant appellants visitation rights on the 1st Sunday of every month, during vacations, and evening communication via phone/video calls.

Subhash Vs Madegowda — Child Custody and Guardianship | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 6010 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6010 OF 2018 (GW)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SUBHASH, S/O CHANNAIAH @ HOTTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶11

SMT.GEETHA, W/O SUBHASH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶12

SMT.GULABI W/O SATHISH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT THUMBAKERE VILLAGE, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN - 571404.

¶15

(BY SRI M.S.MANJANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

MADEGOWDA, S/O CHIKKA MADEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O. D NO.3, 1^ST CROSS, SHIVASHANKARA NAGARA, ANDHRAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 091.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

¶21

MFA No. 6010 of 2018

¶22

(BY SRI S. MUBARAK BEGUM, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 47(a) OF GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2018, PASSED IN G & WC. NO.16/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 10 OF GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT, 1890.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal under Section 47(a) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter for short referred to as 'the Act') has been filed by the maternal grand parents as well as the aunt of the children against the order dated 19.06.2018 passed by the trial Court in G & WC No.16/2016 by which the respondent has been appointed as guardian of the minor child namely Kumari Amulya.

¶27

2. Facts:

¶28

The admitted facts in this appeal are that respondent's son namely Dilip married one namely Abhilasha, daughter of appellants No.1 and 2 on 01.07.2013. Out of the wedlock a daughter namely Kumari Amulya and a son namely Sachin Gowda were born. Unfortunately, this children lost their parents in an accident on 26.06.2016.

¶29

¶30

MFA No. 6010 of 2018

¶31

Thereafter, the respondent who is the paternal grandfather of the children namely Kumari Amulya and Sachin Gowda, filed a petition under Section 10 of the Act, seeking his appointment as guardian in respect of the daughter namely Kumari Amulya and sought for a direction to the appellants herein to handover the custody of the minor daughter.

¶32

The aforesaid petition has been allowed by the trial Court by order dated 19.06.2018 and the respondent who is the paternal grandfather of Kumari Amulya has been appointed as guardian. It is not in dispute that in compliance, on account of subsequent events, both the children namely Kumari Amulya and Sachin Gowda are in the custody of the respondent who is the paternal grandfather.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are confining their challenge to the impugned order dated 19.06.2018 only to the extent it deprives them to the visitation rights. It is further submitted that the appellants No.1 and 2 who are the maternal grand parents of the children as well as appellant No.3 who is the aunt of the children should be granted visitation rights.

¶34

¶35

MFA No. 6010 of 2018

¶36

The aforesaid submission has not been fairly

¶37

opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent and she submits that the respondent has no objection if visitation rights are granted to the appellants.

¶38

We have considered the rival submission made on

¶39

both sides.

¶40

This Court has to ensure that sufficient visitation rights are given to a party who is not appointed as guardian so that the child does not loose social, physical and psychological contact with the other party. A party who is denied the guardianship of the child should have access to the child. It is in the best interest of the children to have love and attention of both the grand parents and we see no reason to deprive the children of the love and care of their maternal grand parents. In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties with regard to the visitation rights, we issue following directions:

¶41

(1) The appellants shall be entitled to spend time

¶42

with the children namely Kumari Amulya and Sachin Gowda on 1^st Sunday of every month between 10:00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m.

¶43

¶44

MFA No. 6010 of 2018

¶45

(2) On 1^st Sunday of every month the respondent shall handover the custody of the children to appellants and they shall spend time with the children and shall handover their custody before 6:00 p.m. to the respondent.

¶46

(3) The appellants shall also be entitled to spend 10 days during the Summer Vacation of the children and one week during the Dasara Vacation of the children.

¶47

(4) In addition, appellants shall be entitled to communicate with the children through telephone/video call/skype between 06:00 pm to 07:00 p.m., twice in a week.

¶48

(5) Respondent shall also provide school calendar of the children with the list of holidays along with the dates of examination to the appellants.

¶49

To the aforesaid extent the order dated 19.06.2018 passed by the trial Court is modified.

¶50

¶51

MFA No. 6010 of 2018

¶52

In the result, the appeal is disposed of.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

GVP

Subhash v. Madegowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash v. Madegowda

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 R T Nagendra Vs Smt Hemavathi P (Punarva)

Sri. M. Chandraiah Vs Smt. Umadevi

S Venkatesh Kumar Vs Smt v Sujatha

James Nicholas L Vs Nil

Sri Gautam Raghunath Sharma Vs Smt Meghashree v K

Smt M N Malavika Vs Sri H R Rajesh