Dismissed

Smt Arjitha Shelke D G v. Sri Bhonsley P C R

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2023WP/7462/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging specific custody and visitation orders. High Court noted the interest of the child in both parents, directed the Family Court to decide on the modification petition regarding travel hardship, and maintained the existing interaction arrangement for the time being.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; Family Court directed to decide on modification application; existing interaction arrangement continued till final disposal.

Smt Arjitha Shelke D G Vs Sri Bhonsley P C R — Child Custody and Guardianship | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:42505 WP No. 7462 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 7462 OF 2023 (GM-FC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT ARJITHA SHELKE D G AGED 36 YEARS, W/O SRI BHONSLEY P.C.R., R/AT NO.257, 7TH MAIN ROAD, KSRTC LAYOUT, 2ND PAHSE, J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. M.N. SHESHADRI, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI. M KRISHNAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

SRI BHONSLEY P C R AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O.S.V. PANDU RAO, Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K R/AT NO.545, 3RD MAIN, Location: HIGH 4TH 'C' CROSS, M.M.LAYOUT, COURT OF KAVALBYRASANDRA, KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560032.

¶12

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SHOBHA BHAVIKATTI, ADV)

¶13

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DTD 01.07.2022 PASSED ON IA NOS.3, 6 AND 7 IN G AND W C NO.133/2022 BY THE V ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU AS AT ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE AFORESAID IA NO.7 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SEC 12 OF THE GUARDIANS AND

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:42505 WP No. 7462 of 2023

¶16

WARDS ACT R/W SEC 151 CPC BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO PRODUCE THE SAID MINOR FEMALE CHILD KUM SHAIVI BEFORE THIS HONBLE COURT AND GRANT INTERIM CUSTODY OF THE SAID MINOR CHILD TO THE PETITIONER.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 01.07.2022 passed on I.A.Nos.3, 6 and 7 in G % W.C.No.133/2022 by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, which directs visitation granted to the mother at particular times.

¶20

Heard the learned Senior counsel

¶21

Sri.M.N.Sheshadri, appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Smt.Shobha Bhavikatti, representing the respondent.

¶22

On entertaining the petition, this Court has passed a sleeve of orders, which are germane to be noticed. This Court on 01.09.2023 has passed the following order:

¶23

" ORDER

¶24

Counsel for the petitioner is reported to be not well. The mother has interacted with the child pleasantly for quite a long period this day. She shall be permitted to interact with the child on Saturday & Sundays during the period between 9

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:42505 WP No. 7462 of 2023

¶26

a.m. to 1.30 p.m; however, the essential custody of the child would continue with the father only. The other days after the school hours, the child shall be with the mother for a period of two hours, and at night it shall be with the father.

¶27

The respondent-father is warned that should he not facilitate the exercise of above visitation rights of mother, he runs the risk of loosing the custody of child in favour of petitioner-mother.

¶28

Call this matter on 19.9.2023."

¶29

The order comes to be modified on 07.11.2023 and

¶30

the modified order reads as follows:

¶31

" ORDER

¶32

The respondent-father has preferred an application seeking vacation of the order dated 01/09/2023.

¶33

Heard learned senior counsel Sri M.N.Sheshadri appearing for the petitioner-mother and learned counsel Smt.Shobha Bhavikatti appearing for the respondent-father.

¶34

This Court on 01.09.2023 had passed the

¶35

following order:

¶36

“Counsel for the petitioner is reported to be not well. The mother has interacted with the child pleasantly for quite a long period this day. She shall be permitted to interact with the child on Saturday & Sundays during the period between 9 a.m. to 1.30 p.m; however, the essential custody of the child would

¶37

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:42505 WP No. 7462 of 2023

¶38

continue with the father only. The other days after the school hours, the child shall be with the mother for a period of two hours, and at night it shall be with the father.

¶39

The respondent-father is warned that should he not facilitate the exercise of above visitation rights of mother, he runs the risk of loosing the custody of child in favour of petitioner-mother.”

¶40

Call this matter on 19.9.2023.”

¶41

The grievance of the father is that the interaction of the mother with child for two hours every day as was directed is causing grave hardship to the child as the child has to travel 13kms. to attend the school and 13 kms. Back home to the place where she stays with the father. The plea of the father is that, in this vehicular traffic at the peak hour is causing hardship to the child.

¶42

Therefore, in the best interest of the child, I deem it appropriate to extend the hours of interaction on Saturdays and Sundays as was directed by this Court to be between 9.00 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. shall be between 9.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. on both the days.

¶43

This is in lieu of the mother meeting the child every day for two hours as was directed.

¶44

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:42505 WP No. 7462 of 2023

¶45

Therefore, the interaction of the mother with the child shall be only on Saturdays and Sundays between 9.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m.

¶46

List the matter on 16/11/2023 .

¶47

If there is any problem in implementation of this order, shall be placed before the Court on the next date of hearing."

¶48

This Court noticing or noting the best interest of the

¶49

child, visitation was given between 09.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m., on both the dates i.e., on Saturdays and Sundays. The respondent - husband is now seeking to project that this also should be modified. The modification is sought on one score that of an incident that has happened close to two years ago. Therefore, the parties are before the concerned Court.

¶50

I deem it appropriate to direct the concerned Court

¶51

to pass appropriate orders on the petition filed before it or any application seeking modification of the order.

¶52

Till such time, the application filed would be considered, the arrangement made on 07.11.2023 shall continue.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2023:KHC:42505 WP No. 7462 of 2023

¶55

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands

disposed.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/JUDGE

KG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 48

Smt Arjitha Shelke D G v. Sri Bhonsley P C R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Arjitha Shelke D G v. Sri Bhonsley P C R

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

Mr Nabikhan Vs the Bangalore Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Sri. Ashoka. T Vs Smt. Varalakshmi. M. N.

Anantha Padmanabha Kini Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sneha Vs Mr Shankarananda G

M/S. Muthoot Finance Ltd., Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Subbalakshmi Vs Sri. M Visvesvaraya Co-Operative Bank Limited