Allowed

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

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2024WP/7082/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, mother of a 17-year-old girl, filed writ petition challenging lower court's visitation order granted to the father after 15 years. Supreme Court of Karnataka allowed petition, emphasizing child welfare and lack of prior father's interaction, directing lower court to interact with child before final decision.

What did the court decide?

Set aside order dated 07.03.2023 by Senior Civil Judge; directed to interact with child before passing orders; application to be heard in July 2024.

Smt. Ramya T v Vs Sru Koushik Rajaram @… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:9406 WP No. 7082 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO.7082 OF 2023 (GM-FC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. RAMYA T.V., W/O ARAVIND K.N., AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO. 959, ANAGHA, ADARSHANAGARA, ARASHINAKUNTE, NELAMANGALA TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. N.K. HARISH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI KOUSHIK RAJARAM @ KOUSHIK R NIJAGAL, S/O RAJARAM B.S., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.1773, C MAIN ROAD, 2ND STAGE, SHIRAMPURA, MYSURU - 570 023.

¶13

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRITHVI RAJ B.N., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶14

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 07.03.2023 ON IA NO.1 IN G AND WC NO.22/2022 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE NELAMANGALA PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND IA.NO.1 IN G AND WC NO.22/2022 MAY BE DISMISSED AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:9406 WP No. 7082 of 2023

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Aggrieved with the order passed in I.A.No.1 in G & WC.No.22/2022 dated 07.03.2023, the wife is before this Court. It is the case of the petitioner/wife that she married the respondent on 18.05.2005 and they are blessed with a daughter on 22.03.2007. Their marriage was dissolved by way of mutual consent on 07.06.2008 in M.C.No.123/2008. It is the case that after the divorce, both the petitioner and respondent have re-married. From the last six months, the respondent/husband has tried to meet the child and the petitioner/wife did not allow him to meet the child. It is the case of the husband that the wife and second husband are not in a position to take care of the child and it will have impact on her life, education, carrier and marriage prospectus. The respondent/husband is economically more stable, will be able to take care the needs of the child.

¶20

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9406 WP No. 7082 of 2023

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife has filed objections. As per the mutual consent divorce decree that is passed by the Court below, the custody of the child is granted to the mother. Now, the girl is studying I PUC. The petitioner/wife and her second husband have been taking care of the child with utmost love and affection. Now, at this crucial period if the visitation rights are given, it may have an adverse impact on the child's education as well on her well being.

¶22

The Court below had passed the impugned order, whereby the petitioner has been permitted to meet his minor child at her present residential address, once in a week, preferably on weekly holiday to the child, till disposal of the petition. The Court below has also observed that while deciding the petition further, about the custody of the child, the Court below will interact with the girl.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the divorce decree was obtained in the year

¶24

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:9406 WP No. 7082 of 2023

¶25

From the year 2008, the petitioner has not made any efforts to meet the child. Now, he has come up with this petition for custody as well as the visitation rights. The Court below without considering any of the aspects and particularly the age of the girl is 17 years and till now no efforts were made by the father to meet the child had granted visitation rights. At this juncture, if she is compelled to visit the respondent, it would have an impact on her education and otherwise.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶27

respondent/husband submits that he has been visiting the child from the year 2013. Thereafter, he could not visit the child. The Court below had only granted the visitation rights and it would not have an adverse impact on her. He further submitted that the other submissions of the leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife could be considered by the Court in the main petition. At this juncture, the orders passed by the Court below is

¶28

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:9406 WP No. 7082 of 2023

¶29

balancing the interest of both the parties and no interference is called for with the said arrangement.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsels on either side,

¶31

perused the entire material on record. In this case, there is no dispute about the fact that the mutual consent divorce is granted in the year 2008 and from the year 2008, the girl is staying with the mother and the mother is re-married. According to the husband, he has been meeting the child till the year 2013 and according to the learned counsel for the respondent, he has never met the girl till the orders passed by the Court below.

¶32

This Court has perused the petition filed before this Court. It is no where stated that he has met the girl before the orders passed by the Court below and even the efforts that he was speaking about, were made in the year 2021. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that in the vacate petition, he has stated about that from when he has been meeting the girl.

¶33

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:9406 WP No. 7082 of 2023

¶34

This Court is not able to appreciate the said submission as the said crucial aspect could have been stated before the Court itself. If at all he was meeting the girl while granting the visitation rights or the custody of the girl this Court is concerned more on the welfare of the child, less the rights of the parents. Now the girl is aged 17 years and she has never seen her natural father and she has been brought up by the mother and her second husband.

¶35

The Court below has granted the visitation rights, without even interacting with the girl that too a petition which is filed, nearly after 15 years, after the birth of the child. Now, the child is 17 years old. In the light of the above facts the Writ Petition is allowed as indicated below:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i) The Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside

¶38

the order dated 07.03.2023 passed on I.A.No.1 in G & WC.No.22/2022 by the Senior Civil Judge, Nelamangala.

¶39

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:9406 WP No. 7082 of 2023

¶40

ii) The Court below shall first interact with the

¶41

child and then pass an appropriate order. It is stated that the child is having exams, in that view of the matter, the application shall be heard in the month of July, 2024 and then necessary orders shall be passed.

¶42

SD/JUDGE

¶43

¶44

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Bhavya Mohan Vs Abhinav Shrivastava

G Somashekar Vs G Harish

Smt. Nenavath Kamala Bhai @ Vs Reliance General Insurance