Disposed

Mrs.Arunima Gupta v. Mr.Srisundar Sankarnarayanan

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2024WP/19315/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mother challenged interim custody arrangements granting father shared school-vacation custody of their six-year-old son and sought leave to travel to Jaipur with the child. Both parents reside in the same apartment. The High Court modified visitation terms, permitted day custody instead of overnight, allowed the Jaipur trip for a fixed period, and disposed of both petitions.

What did the court decide?

Trial court order modified: no video call on play-area days, alternate video call slot 7.30-8.30 pm, Sunday visitation at father's flat, day-only vacation custody, Jaipur trip permitted 01.10.2024-12.

Mrs.Arunima Gupta Vs Mr.Srisundar… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:36999 WP No. 19315 of 2022 C/W WP No. 13476 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 19315 OF 2022 (GM-FC)

¶7

C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 13476 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

¶9

IN WP No. 19315/2022

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

MRS. ARUNIMA GUPTA, W/O. SRISUNDAR SANKARANARAYANAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A D-201, AJMERA STONE PARK, NILADRI ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY-1, BENGALURU-560 100.

¶12

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

ALTERNATE ADDRESS OFFICE AT DEUSTCHE INDIA PVT. LTD., BUILDING 5, 6, 7 AND 8, VELANKINI TECH PARK, ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE -1, BENGALURU – 560 100.

¶14

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. LAKSHMI IYENGER, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI. N. GOWTHAM RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

MR. SRISUNDAR SANKARNARAYANAN, S/O. LATE SANKARNARAYANAN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/A D-201, AJMERA STONE PARK, NILADRI ROAD,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:36999 WP No. 19315 of 2022 C/W WP No. 13476 of 2024

¶19

ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE-1, BENGALURU – 560 100.

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI. MUNISWAMY GOWDA S.G., ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE PORTION OF THE ORDER DATED 21.09.2022 ON IA.NO.8 IN G AND WC.NO.42/2022 PASSED BY THE 7^TH ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL AT BENGALURU IN SO FAR AS THE GRANT OF SHARED INTERIM CUSTODY OF THE MINOR SON RISHAAN SRISUNDAR AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS TO THE RESPONDENT DURING ALL SCHOOL VACATIONS (ANNEXUREA) AND ETC.

¶23

IN WP NO. 13476/2024

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

MRS. ARUNIMA GUPTA, W/O. SRISUNDAR SANKARANARAYANAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT 11174, SOBHA SILICON OASIS, HOSA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 100. ALTERNATE ADDRESS OFFICE AT DEUSTCHE INDIA PVT. LTD., BUILDING 5,6,7 AND 8, VELANKINI TECH PARK, ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE -I, BENGALURU - 560100.

¶26

...PETITIONER

¶27

(BY SRI. LAKSHMI IYENGER, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH SRI. N. GOWTHAM RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

MR. SRISUNDAR SANKARNARAYANAN, S/O. LATE SANKARANARAYANAN,

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36999 WP No. 19315 of 2022 C/W WP No. 13476 of 2024

¶31

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT D-201, AJAMERA STONE PARK, NILADRI ROAD, ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE-I, BENGALURU – 560 100.

¶32

...RESPONDENT

¶33

(BY SRI. MUNISWAMY GOWDA S.G., ADVOCATE)

¶34

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE PORTION OF THE ORDER DATED 21.09.2022 ON I.A.NO.8 IN G AND WC.NO.42/2022 PASSED BY THE 7^TH ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL AT BENGALURU IN SO FAR AS THE GRANT OF SHARED INTERIM CUSTODY OF THE MINOR SON RISHAAN SRISUNDAR AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS TO THE RESPONDENT DURING ALL SCHOOL VACATIONS (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

¶35

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.8 in G & WC. No.42/2022 dated 21.09.2022 by the VII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, the W.P.No.19315/2022 is filed. The second Writ Petition that is W.P.No.13476/2024 is filed seeking a direction to the Trial Court to dispose off the pending I.A.No.11 whereby the mother has sought

¶39

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:36999 WP No. 19315 of 2022 C/W WP No. 13476 of 2024

¶40

permission of the Court to travel to Jaipur along with the son for a period of four weeks.

¶41

The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience.

¶42

It is the case that the petitioner and the respondent got married and out of the wedlock they are blessed with a son. When the father had taken away the child without the notice and knowledge of the mother, she filed a Habeas Corpus petition before this Court. When the matter came up before the Division Bench of this Court, on 15.03.2022, the Court had directed the police to trace out the missing son of the petitioner. In spite of an order of the Court, the husband had not produced the son physically before the Court and he choose to keep the minor son present virtually and at the insistence of this Court, the parties have entered into a settlement which was recorded by the Court wherein the Court had observed that both of them shall live together along with their son in the matrimonial home. The husband shall join the matrimonial home along with the son on 25.03.2022. The minor son shall not be taken out of

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36999 WP No. 19315 of 2022 C/W WP No. 13476 of 2024

¶44

Bangalore. The wife would submit in writing to the police authorities that she does not intend to take any action against the husband in Cr.No.39/2012 registered at Bangalore East Zone in view of the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties. In the event, the mother intends to visit Jaipur to be with her father in his final stages, the minor son as well as the husband shall accompany the wife to Jaipur. Thereafter, again on 05.04.2022 another order was passed considering the settlement between the parties. As per the said settlement, the wife and husband shall live together along with their son in the matrimonial home at Bangalore. They should have the joint custody of the minor son. The husband shall be given access to the minor son and should not prevent him from spending time with the mother and the same condition with regard to not leaving Bangalore is again imposed and about not to pursue the crime also form part of the said settlement. Accordingly, that petition was disposed off. Thereafter, when the father had filed CCC(Civil).No.590/2022 and that came to be disposed off on 11.08.2022. The Court considering the contentions on behalf of both the parties had observed that

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:36999 WP No. 19315 of 2022 C/W WP No. 13476 of 2024

¶46

it deems appropriate to direct the Family Court to make an endeavor to dispose off the application for interim custody of the minor son filed by the husband expeditiously preferably within a period of three weeks and the wife shall permit the son to interact with the husband through video call in the evening between 6.00 pm and 7.00 pm. In the meantime, it will be open for the wife to make an application before the Family Court to take the son out of Bangalore if circumstances so justify. The father had carried the said order passed in the contempt before the Hon’ble Apex Court and that Special Leave Petition came to be disposed off, clarifying that observations made by the High Court in the impugned order should not be used against the father in any of the proceedings to which he is entitled in law. The High Court, in the said order was only considering an issue as to whether the disobedience by the wife was willful or not. No other issue between the parties fell for consideration in the said proceedings. Thereafter, the order impugned came to be passed by the Family Court whereby the Court had permitted the father to have a video call between 6.00 pm to 7.00 pm and on a Sunday the father

¶47

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:36999 WP No. 19315 of 2022 C/W WP No. 13476 of 2024

¶48

can meet the child between 10.00 pm and 4.00 pm. and both of them will have the equal visitation during vacation. Aggrieved by such order, the mother is before this Court by filing WP.No.19315/2022.

¶49

Learned Senior Counsel Smt. Lakshmi Iyengar appearing for the petitioner/ mother submits that the father is staying in the same apartment. In fact, everyday he is meeting the child, he is having the company of the child more than what the Court had granted. Learned Senior Counsel submits that when they are staying in the same apartment and considering the child’s age is 6 years, the Court ought not to have given the overnight custody. It is submitted that the maternal grandfather is ailing and when she wanted to take the child to Jaipur where the maternal grandfather is staying, she filed I.A.No.11 and the Court had not considered the same till now. It is submitted that considering the health condition of the maternal grandfather and further, right from the date of order passed in the Habeas Corpus petition, the child has not left Bangalore. Except once considering the health condition of the father, the Court ought to have disposed off the pending I.A., but

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:36999 WP No. 19315 of 2022 C/W WP No. 13476 of 2024

¶51

no orders are passed , which made them to come to this Court.

¶52

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/father submits that the Trial Court had granted the visitation on every Sunday between 10.00 am and 4.00 pm. When both of them are residing in the very same apartment, he has to go to a mall and meet the child. He submits that if the father can take the child to his flat as he is in the same apartment, he would be able to spend quality time with the child. It is submitted that he does not dispute the fact that between 6.00 pm and 7.00 pm., sometimes when the child comes down to the play area, he is exercising the visitation. Learned counsel submits that when the mother is around, he is not able to exercise the visitation. He submits that the child is going to the friend’s place for sleep over and the same thing can happen with father, there is no difficulty in granting overnight custody to the father. He submits that the mother just like that , takes the child out of Bangalore, the father will lose an opportunity to be with the child and as the application is pending before the Trial Court, eventually that application would be decided by the Trial

¶53

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:36999 WP No. 19315 of 2022 C/W WP No. 13476 of 2024

¶54

Court and no orders needs to be passed by this Court in this petition.

¶55

Having heard the Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/mother and the learned counsel for the respondent/father, perused the entire material on record. By the impugned order, the Court had permitted the father to have a video call between 6.00 and 7.00 pm. Sundays between 10.00 am to 4.00 pm., the father can meet the child and during school vacation, both of them can have 50% of custody. The boy is aged 6 years. These are all undisputed facts. When both the mother and father are residing in the same apartment, it is argued by the learned Senior Counsel that when the child is coming everyday to play, definitely there is no restriction for the father to spend time with him. He must be spending a qualitative time with the father. Whenever the father is spending time with the child when he comes down to the play area, then again question of having a video call between 6.00 pm to 7.00 pm., is not necessary. As far as that clause of the order passed by the Trial Court is concerned needs to be modified. Then coming to the visitation on Sunday between 10.00 am to

¶56

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:36999 WP No. 19315 of 2022 C/W WP No. 13476 of 2024

¶57

4.00 pm., when the father is staying in the very same apartment, there is no necessity for the father to take the child outside every time to exercise the visitation and it is also not in the interest of the father and the child. As he is staying in the same apartment, the father can as well take the child to his place and spend qualitative time. Even on that count also the order of the Trial Court needs to be modified. Then coming to the application that is filed by the mother seeking permission of the Court to go to Jaipur, no doubt the application is pending before the Trial Court. As both the parties the before this court, instead of another round of litigation, this Court is disposing off both the Writ Petitions in the following manner,

¶58

ORDER

¶59

i. The order in I.A.No.8 in G & WC.No.42/2022 dated 21.09.2022 by the VII Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District is modified.

¶60

ii. If the child comes down to the play area, the father can spend time with him and on that day no video call is permitted. If the boy do not come down to the play area, then on that day he

¶61

11 -

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC:36999 WP No. 19315 of 2022 C/W WP No. 13476 of 2024

¶63

can have the video call between 7.30 and 8.30 pm.

¶64

iii. On every Sunday between 10.00 am and 4.00 pm, the father can take the child to his flat and exercise the visitation.

¶65

iv. During the school vacation, where the father is granted 50% of the vacation, on those days he can have the custody between 10.00 am to 4.00 pm. The father can take the child to his home or to anywhere in Bangalore to any place of the child's liking.

¶66

v. As the maternal grandfather is not feeling well, the mother can take the child to Jaipur. She shall leave Bangalore on 01.10.2024 and come back by 12.10.2024 and during these days evening between 7.30 to 8.30 pm., the father can have the video call. After coming back from Jaipur, wherever in these 11 days, if any Sunday falls in between, then that day shall be compensated. This period happens to be the

¶67

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:36999 WP No. 19315 of 2022 C/W WP No. 13476 of 2024

¶68

Dasara vacation, the father’s share of vacation

¶69

shall be compensated on Saturdays.

¶70

vi. Whenever she wants to take the child out of

¶71

Bangalore i.e., maximum for three days, it should be intimated to the father in advance and should also intimate to the father when those days are going to be compensated. Even during those days also, he shall have the video calls between 7.30 pm and 8.30 pm. Leaving the city shall not be on a regular basis.

¶72

vii. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed off. viii. All I.As., in the Writ Petitions, shall stand closed.

¶73

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶74

BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Mrs.Arunima Gupta v. Mr.Srisundar Sankarnarayanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Arunima Gupta v. Mr.Srisundar Sankarnarayanan

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 Rajappa Vs Smt Baby

Mr Bellacchi @ Sundari Vs Mrs Gracy Fernandes Nee D Souza

Sri.S.a. Bari Vs Sri.Syed Taufiq Ahmmed

Smt. B.S.Asha Vs Sri. T. Sathyababu

Mr Subhashchandra M Modi Vs Sri Gurur P Manay

G G Reddappa Vs a C Prabhakar Naidu