Disposed

Smt Trishu M Reddy v. Sri Vikrama Reddy

Karnataka HC27 Feb 2024WP/291/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mother challenged Family Court visitation orders and NIMHANS reports in a custody dispute over her minor son. The High Court held the petition premature, found the mother had tutored the child against the father, declined to interfere, and disposed of the writ petition leaving applications to the court below.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt Trishu M Reddy Vs Sri Vikrama Reddy — Child Custody and Guardianship | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:8032 WP No. 291 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 291 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. TRISHU M REDDY, W/O VIKRAMA REDDY, D/O M.MUNI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT #781, 9^TH MAIN, 3^RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 030. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SADANAND G SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI VIKRAMA REDDY, S/O PAPA REDDY K, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT #19/10, GUNJUR-DODDA KANNELLI ROAD, CARMELARAM, BENGALURU-560 035. …RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI ARUN SHYAM, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI SUYOG HERELE E, ADVOCATE)

¶12

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12/02/2021 AND 23/08/2023 AT ANNEXURE-A ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL. FAMILY JUDGE, AT BANGALORE. ii) TO DISCARD THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES (NIMHANS) REPORT DATED 12/10/2023 AND 26/07/2023 AND ITS RECOMMENDATIONS AS NOT BEARING ON THE PETITIONER IN TOTO ETC.

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:8032 WP No. 291 of 2024

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:

¶18

"i. To set aside the order dated 12.02.2021 and 23.08.2023 at Annexure 'A' in G & WC No.243/2020 on the file of the Court of the VI Additional Family Judge, at Bangalore;

¶19

ii. To discard the NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES (NIMHANS) report dated 12.10.2023 and 26.07.2023 and its recommendations as not bearing on the petitioner in toto vide the AnnexureB1 & B2;

¶20

iii. To modify the visitation rights dated 12-02-2021 in G & WC No.243/2020 at Annexure 'A' on the file of the Court of VI Additional Family Judge at Bangalore to such an extent that it may be reduced to once in two months on a pilot basis keeping the welfare of the child;

¶21

iv. Direction to further proceedings in G & WC No.243/2020 on the file of the Court of the VI Additional Family Judge at Bangalore;

¶22

v. Call for Trial Court Records"

¶23

The mother is before this Court. The father has filed a petition before the Court below under Guardians and Wards Act i.e., G & WC No.243/2020 on the file of the VI Additional Family Judge, Bengaluru seeking custody of the minor child. The Court below by order dated 12.02.2021 has granted visitation right to the father on every Saturday between 04.00

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:8032 WP No. 291 of 2024

¶26

pm to 06.00 pm. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the boy is not mingling with the father and he has his own reservation in meeting the father. An order dated 17.02.2023,

¶27

is passed by the Court below observing that both the parties and their counsels are present, conciliation was held in-camera from 03.30 pm to 04.00 pm and they have interacted with the child, his name is Taksh, 5 years old studying in U.K.G. at NPS school. He does not want to see face of his father at least say hai or hello to his father and asked his mother's name, then he says he calls her as mumma. He is not saying name of his father. The father has tried to talk to the child, but the child is not responding, simply sitting in the arms of the mother. It is submitted by the mother that child was once taken to NIMHANS, since he has fear of father visiting the house. She has also shared information with the father in this regard. Then the Court has felt that the father, mother and the child should attend a counseling with the Doctor, who has treated the child. hence, the Court has directed the mother to take appointment of the concerned Doctor, intimate the same to the husband through his counsel in advance, thereby, both parties and the child should participate in the counseling before the concerned

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:8032 WP No. 291 of 2024

¶30

doctor as per convenience of the child and to report to the Court and accordingly, adjourned the matter to 31.03.2023.

¶31

Thereafter, on 31.03.2023, as per the docket proceedings, the Court observed that advocate for the wife has filed a memo and perused the same. Pursuant to the order dated 17.02.2023, as regards mental health condition of the child and its behaviour with the mother and father, the concerned doctor in NIMHANS is directed to conduct required number of session with the child and his parents to know the behaviour and psychology of the child. The doctor is also directed to clarify whether child is on medication, if any, since the father has sought for permanent custody of the child and visitation rights. Hence, office is directed to submit a letter through email forthwith to NIMHANS as mentioned in the memo filed by the mother with a direction to submit report after conducting necessary sessions.

¶32

As per the letter dated 27.07.2023 with the provisional report from Dr.Rajendra K.M., NIMHANS. Some more sessions needs to be conducted with the child and parents. The Court had adjourned the same awaiting for the

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:8032 WP No. 291 of 2024

¶35

final report and directed the matter to call on 23.08.2023. Thereafter, another letter dated 26.07.2023 is received. As per that the Court has directed to follow the direction. Later, on 23.11.2023, a report of NIMHANS, Bengaluru was received. As per the same, the doctors have requested the Court to plan the certain time schedule for further detailed observation and evaluation of mental health of the child with inpatient care. The father has prayed the Court to pass necessary order. However, advocate for the mother submitted that he is unaware of the report, he has applied certified copy of the same and he will make his submissions next time. Hence, the Court has directed the matter to call on 17.12.2023.

¶36

On 07.12.2023, the mother was permitted to

¶37

engage service of advocate. Again the petitioner has asked for an order requesting the Court to pass orders on the recommendation of NIMHANS dated 12.10.2023 and the time was sought by the respondent and accordingly, the Court has adjourned the matter to 04.01.2024. Thereafter, the father has come before this Court with a prayer that the order dated 12.02.2021 and 23.08.2023 have to be set aside.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:8032 WP No. 291 of 2024

¶40

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶41

child is perfectly alright and by way of a memo, he has filed a report of the school where they have stated that by all means the child is balanced and also a bright child. It is submitted that the child has developed aversion towards father and just because he is not interested to meet the father, that cannot be a ground to refer the boy to NIMHANS and in fact, it is violating the rights guaranteed to the child under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is submitted that the as per the visitation rights, which were granted earlier, he can meet the child between 04.00 pm to 06.00 pm on every Saturday. Now whenever the father visits the boy, the boy is developing health issues and in fact, on the last occasion, when the father met him, he has suffered disturbance/distress in the night. As such, that order needs to be modified and the mother is no way coming in the way of the father meeting the child but the health condition and the fear he is having towards father always has to be taken into consideration. Hence, the Court has to evaluate how the child is reacting and now by reducing the visitation rights once in a month, it has to be monitored. It is submitted that the report of the NIMHANS where the boy is

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:8032 WP No. 291 of 2024

¶44

directed to be admitted as an inpatient, is not a correct report and the boy who by all means healthy, just because he is not interested to meet the father, cannot be made to undergo all these kind of trauma for no fault of the boy and the Court has to look at the welfare of the boy while considering the application for visitation right than the rights of the parents to visit the boy.

¶45

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent

¶46

submits that he has never made an application to send the boy to NIMHANS. It is submitted that the mother before the Court has submitted; which has been recorded in the docket proceedings that she is taking the boy to the doctor to NIMHANS as he has developed fear, in continuation of that, the interaction of the Court with the boy, where he was not even looking at his father, the Court has directed the mother to take the boy to the doctor to whom she had earlier taken and so that the boy will have an interaction with both the mother and father and doctors will be able to evaluate what is the mental status of the boy. In that regard, several sessions were conducted by NIMHANS.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:8032 WP No. 291 of 2024

¶49

Learned counsel further submits that in one of the

¶50

sessions which are part of the record, wherein, the boy stated that the mother has been referring to the father as stranger and the boy has told the doctor that his mother was saying that his father only wanted money. In one session, it is stated by the boy that she also informed him that the stranger i.e., the father had no gods in his home; instead, Ravana resides there. The boy stated that he felt fear in the presence of the stranger i.e., the father and that all strangers are evil. Later in play session, he made fewer reference to his father and indicated fewer concerns about his father. In another session, the boy has stated that he did not have a father, when referred to the father, he stated that he married his mother making him his father nevertheless he was not helpful to him. He stated that the father has mistreated his mother and grandfather and demanding money from them. When questioned how he know all these things about the father, he stated that no one told him and that he would process them in his thoughts before play session so that doctor aunty could inform the Court of his needs, to avoid meeting father.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:8032 WP No. 291 of 2024

¶53

Learned counsel for the father submits that the boy

¶54

is completely tutored by the mother to develop aversion towards father, ultimately resulted in a kind of psychological state leading to mental issues, whereby, he has developed fear looking at the father. He further submits that there is no cause of action for the petitioner to come before this Court. It is stated that the Court has not acted upon the final report dated 12.10.2023, in fact, on their request, the matter was adjourned. So there was no cause of action for them to say that the said report is being acted upon as a result of the direction given by the Court below. It is submitted that if the petitioner has any grievance against the said report, the Court has given him liberty to file objections and he has filed his objections before the Court below. It will be dealt with by the Court in due course.

¶55

It is submitted that now the other relief that is sought before the Court seeking modification of the earlier order, learned counsel submits that the same could have been done before the Court wherein, bringing to the notice of the Court that the same is not in the interest of the child but the reasons known to the petitioner he has come before this Court.

¶56

10 -

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:8032 WP No. 291 of 2024

¶58

It is submitted that the report of the NIMHANS clearly show how the mother trained the boy and how he looks at the father and as submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner even if the boy is taken once in a month also, the mental process of the boy would remain to be the same. He is at a tender age of six and this is how mother has tutored him detrimental to the interest of the boy.

¶59

Having heard the counsel on either side, perused

¶60

the material on record.

¶61

In this case, the marriage was solemnized between the parties on 20.01.2013 and out of the wedlock, they are blessed with a boy on 27.07.2017 and they have been residing separately from 17.02.2018, by the time, the boy is almost six months, the father and the mother are not staying together. The father has filed his petition for custody in the year 2020. Initially, a petition was filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce and the same was not taken forward. Thereafter, the father has filed this petition on 05.12.2020. Till such time, there was no interaction between the father and the child. After the orders were passed by the

¶62

11 -

¶63

NC: 2024:KHC:8032 WP No. 291 of 2024

¶64

Court below on 12.02.2021 granting the visitation rights on Saturday's between 04.00 pm to 06.00 pm, the father started meeting the boy and it is nobodies case that right from day one there was any interaction between the father and the child. Looking at the father, he developed aversion and also fear. This particular aspect is also considered by the Court below in the docket proceedings and before the Court below, the mother said that since the child has developed fear, she has taken the boy to the NIMHANS. The Court while having interaction with the boy and also the submission made on behalf of the mother, that she has already taken him to NIMHANS, had directed the mother to take appointment from a doctor which she has earlier taken. In that process, the child was treated and they have conducted several sessions, in one of the sessions, the boy has stated that his mother told him the father only needs money and he has no gods in his house instead Ravana resides there. He has fear and also started referring to the father as some stranger and according to the boy, all strangers are evil and he started developing fear towards the father. He states that father comes with the Police and on that also, he has developed fear towards the father.

¶65

12 -

¶66

NC: 2024:KHC:8032 WP No. 291 of 2024

¶67

Now the writ petition is filed seeking the modification of the order stating that it is not good in the interest of the boy to meet father as ordered by the Court below, secondly, that the NIMHANS recommendation that he should be treated as inpatient should be set aside which is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as far as the boy is concerned and also the earlier NIMHANS report dated 23.08.2023, whereby, they have made certain recommendations have to be set aside. This Court has perused the docket proceedings of the Court below. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner has never taken any exceptions to the any of the reports given by the NIMHANS and in fact, on the report dated 12.10.2023, the Court below has given time to the wife to file her objections, if any, and the same is pending consideration. Any order passed by the Court with regard to the custody or the visitation rights, which pertains to a child, it cannot be considered as final order as the same would be considered basing on the requirement and the welfare of the child and the same will be evaluated periodically and basing on the requirement.

¶68

13 -

¶69

NC: 2024:KHC:8032 WP No. 291 of 2024

¶70

This Court has perused the sessions that they had before the NIMHANS and the report which contains all those sessions. Now the only objection of the wife i.e., the mother of the child with regard to the report is that one it will interfere with his school, second, he cannot be taken as a inpatient and he is a healthy boy, who does not require any kind of treatment. Only issue is he does not like his father. All the grounds that are raised before this Court, it is always open to the writ petitioner/wife to place all these issues before the Court below. As seen from the orders passed and also the docket proceedings, the Court has been monitoring the welfare of the child at every stage. Now even at this stage also, whether to take him as inpatient or not, no order has been passed by the Court and it has been adjourned. Though it is stated that mother has no objection for the father to see the child, but ultimately the relief that is sought is the visitation should be once in a month. Whether it is once in a week or once in a month, the boys attitude towards the father would not change. It is so unfortunate that the mother being responsible for his overall development, with all her emotions towards her husband, she had tutored the boy in such a way. The boy who has stated in the sessions about the father

¶71

14 -

¶72

NC: 2024:KHC:8032 WP No. 291 of 2024

¶73

referring him as a stranger and referring him as Ravana shows that the mother is making all her efforts to tutor the boy in a way that he develops aversion and he will not interact with the father. This kind of approach by the mother is not at all good for the health and overall well being of a boy, who is just six years old and at this stage, whatever the mother says as he has been staying with her, it will definitely have an impact on him. This Court while exercising parens patriae jurisdiction is only concerned with the welfare of the child rather than the rights of the parents.

¶74

The material placed before this Court clearly shows that whatever the mother is contributing or whatever the mother is doing is not in the interest of the boy. This kind of approach of the mother would impact the boy and it will have a long lasting effect on his life. The Court cannot be mute a spectator to this kind of actions. Hence, this Court is of the view that the Court below was right in passing the order in the welfare of the child. The submission of the learned counsel stating that the boy cannot be admitted as a inpatient as that it will interfere with the boy's school, this Court has to appreciate the fact that the development of a child not only as a student but also it should be a holistic development. During the

¶75

15 -

¶76

NC: 2024:KHC:8032 WP No. 291 of 2024

¶77

sessions before the NIMHANS, the boy has started expressing himself and the manner in which he has been tutored and also that there is a requirement of the constant sessions to the boy which is his welfare. Because of all these psychological aspects involved in this case, the submission that it is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India has no legs to stand. Apart from the parents, the Court which is exercising the parens patriae jurisdiction, in the welfare of the child has to take measures, which are good for the boy.

¶78

This Court has perused the report and the sessions. This Court is not expressing any opinion as to what has to be done with regard to NIMHANS report as the same is pending before the Court and the Court below will pass the appropriate order basing on the objections filed by the respondent and further, reports from the NIMHANS. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, this writ petition is a premature one and any modification with regard to the visitation rights are required that also can be made before the Court showing the requirements of the same.

¶79

At this juncture, this Court do not inclined to grant any remedy in this writ petition and this writ petition is accordingly disposed off . Hence, the following:

¶80

16 -

¶81

NC: 2024:KHC:8032 WP No. 291 of 2024

¶82

ORDER

¶83

It is open for the parties if they so desire to move appropriate application before the Court below.

¶84

As far as the medical sessions are concerned, the Court below looking at objections and the report submitted by the NIMHANS, shall pass further orders.

¶85

It is needless to say that the writ petitioner can challenge any of the orders that are passed by the Court below.

¶86

This Court by an order dated 13.02.2024 has directed the Mediation Centre, Bengaluru to place the report before this Court so far it is not placed, the report shall be placed before the Court below.

¶87

SD/JUDGE

¶88

NR/-

¶89

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Smt Trishu M Reddy v. Sri Vikrama Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt Trishu M Reddy v. Sri Vikrama Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aruna G Vs Mahesh R v

Mr Adarsh Patil B S Vs Mrs Manasa Lekha

D Sukumar Vs R Gayathri @ Gayathri Devi.R.

Deepa Darshan H P Vs Smt Shruthi H K

Zakariya @ Zacharia Vs the Child Welfare Development

Sri. Poornachandra. K. N. Vs Smt. Mamatha. Y