Disposed

Bhavya Mohan v. Abhinav Shrivastava

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2024WP/6235/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash a Family Court order granting visitation rights. High Court directed Family Court to decide pending applications for maintenance and custody in priority and modified visitation arrangements to be at garden or play area. Petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed. Family Court directed to dispose pending applications within two months. Visitation to be at garden or play area as comfortable to twins.

Bhavya Mohan Vs Abhinav Shrivastava — Child Custody and Guardianship | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:9261 WP No. 6235 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 6235 OF 2023 (GM-FC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

BHAVYA MOHAN, WIFE OF ABHINAV SHRIVASTAVA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1201, KEMPAPURA, HEBBAL, BENGALURU- 560 024.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. ARUN GOVINDRAJ, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

ABHINAV SHRIVASTAVA, SON OF MAYANK SHRIVASTAVA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT GROUND FLOOR, NO.56, 5TH MAIN ROAD, BEHIND LEELA PALACE, EXTN, DOMLUR, BENGALURU-560 008.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT. GEETA MENON, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶14

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.02.2023 IN M.C.NO.2341/2022 PASSED BY THE

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:9261 WP No. 6235 of 2023

¶17

HONBLE III ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner/wife aggrieved by the docket order dated 17.02.2023 passed in MC.No.2341/2022 by the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, where the Court below has granted visitation rights to the father, in the place which is acceptable for both the parties at Prestige Misty Waters complex clubhouse between 6.00 to

¶21

8.00 p.m., on every Saturday till further orders.

¶22

Both the petitioner/wife and the

¶23

respondent/husband got married on 20.01.2017, at Mumbai, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. In the month of June, 2020 they have obtained a home loan from Kotak Bank and purchased an apartment where the petitioner/wife is residing along with the children. In the month of August, 2020 the petitioner/wife got conceived.

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9261 WP No. 6235 of 2023

¶25

According to the petitioner, throughout the said period, she has undergone lot of trauma. On 24.03.2021, the petitioner/wife delivered a baby boy and a baby girl. Slowly the respondent has distanced himself from the petitioner and the children and he also discouraged the wife from returning to the matrimonial home. On 01.10.2021, the petitioner/husband had got issued a notice seeking restitution of conjugal rights. On 17.10.2021, when the wife returned to her matrimonial home, she was subjected to lot of violence. On 18.10.2021

¶26

the husband abandoned the wife and the children and refused to return to the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the respondent/husband filed M.C.No.2341/2022 on the file of the Hon'ble III Additional Principle Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru and also stopped making the payment towards EMI. In the M.C., petitioner has filed several applications seeking maintenance, protection and residence orders. Those applications were filed on 01.08.2022.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:9261 WP No. 6235 of 2023

¶29

It is submitted by learned counsel for the

¶30

petitioner that the Court below has not decided any of the applications that were filed by her. Though an application is filed by the husband seeking visitation rights on 11.04.2022, the Court below by the impugned proceedings dated 17.02.2023 has granted the visitation rights to the father. The Court has failed to consider the fact that as on

¶31

the date, when the father left the twins were of a month old and now as on the date of the petition they are of two years old and the Court ought to have considered the difficulties and how they would be able to interact with the father as they have no contact with him almost from their birth. Without considering all these aspects, just by way of

¶32

a docket order impugned order came to be passed. It is further submitted that when the other I.A's are pending, which are very important and which should have been given more importance by the Court, considering the fate of the wife where she has to maintain her children who are

¶33

twins.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:9261 WP No. 6235 of 2023

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent

¶37

submits that in fact the petition, which is filed for visitation rights is much before the applications filed by the petitioner/wife. It is submitted that inspite of the orders passed by the Court, almost on fifty four occasions, the wife has failed to get the children to play area and out of it, the father can exercise the visitation rights 8 times, that too whenever the case is listed before the Court below.

¶38

Learned counsel for the respondent further

¶39

submits that the father has every right to visit the children. At that point of time, learned counsel for the petitioner/wife submits that the children are of just two years old and when the father wants to meet them in the garden area, they want to be at the play area and because of this, the father could not exercise his visitation rights. In fact she has no difficulty with the respondent exercising his visitation rights.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:9261 WP No. 6235 of 2023

¶42

Having heard the learned counsels on either side,

¶43

perused the entire material on record. M.C.No.2341/2022 is filed in the year 2022 and several I.A's are filed by the wife seeking several relief and I.A. is filed by the father seeking visitation rights. It appears from the record that the Court has failed to adjudicate on the I.A's that are pending, but just like that some docket order is passed granting the visitation rights and why the Court has not considered other I.A's filed by the wife and that too when they were pending from 01.08.2022. Granting the interim maintenance which is urgent in nature, the Court below should have given more importance to that. Then coming to the visitation rights, the father has been granted with the same, it appears that he has been exercising the same. However, on some occasions he could not exercise the visitation rights. On this both of them have taken different stands. Considering all these facts, the interest

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:9261 WP No. 6235 of 2023

¶46

and welfare of two minor children, this Court is disposing

¶47

of the Writ Petition in the following manner:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i) The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶50

ii) The Court below shall dispose off all the pending applications, particularly the four I.A's which are filed by the wife on 01.08.2022 and the I.A. that is filed by the husband and even the other I.A. that the children should not be taken out of Bengaluru, should be heard in priority and the Court shall dispose off these I.A's within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order and both the parties shall co-operate with the same.

¶51

iii) Till the Order is passed on two I.A's that are filed by the husband with regard to the visitation as well as taking the children from restraining the wife from taking the children away from Bengaluru, till they are decided, as per the order dated 17.02.2023. Arrangements shall go on with a modification

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:9261 WP No. 6235 of 2023

¶54

that either it is at the garden or at the play area whichever is comfortable to the twins, the father shall exercise the visitation rights which is subject to the further orders passed by the Court in the pending I.A's of the father for visitation rights.

¶55

SD/JUDGE

¶56

BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Bhavya Mohan v. Abhinav Shrivastava

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhavya Mohan v. Abhinav Shrivastava

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

Dr Elroy Saldanha Vs Dr Deepti Celestine Dsouza

Smt. Jayamma Vs Sri. Srinivas

Hamza Sajid Ahmed Vs C John George

Smt. Ramya T v Vs Sru Koushik Rajaram @ Koushik R Nijagal

G Somashekar Vs G Harish

Smt. Nenavath Kamala Bhai @ Vs Reliance General Insurance