Partly allowed

Mrs Sheetal B Prasad v. Mr Dweep Advani

Karnataka HC4 Apr 2024WP/7614/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner-mother challenged a High Court order granting father overnight interim custody during summer vacation due to fears of his anger and suicide tendencies. This Court modified the custody schedule, allowing overnight care but restricting hours to 10 am–7 pm (or 1 pm–6 pm if a summer camp occurs), addressing the mother's safety concerns while facilitating father's access.

What did the court decide?

Modified the interim custody order to grant the father custody from 10:00 am to 7:00 pm (or 1:00 pm to 6:00 pm during summer camp) during the first half of summer vacation, with exchange at Vega City

Mrs Sheetal B Prasad Vs Mr Dweep Advani — Child Custody and Guardianship | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:14011 WP No. 7614 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 7614 OF 2022 (GM-FC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MRS SHEETAL B PRASAD D/O BABU PRASAD AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO. 12, ASHIRWAD AYODYANAGAR, J.P. NAGAR, 5th PHASE, BENGALURU 560 078

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. TUMBIGI PRABHUGOUDA.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

MR DWEEP ADVANI S/O PRAKASH ADVANI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT C -326, PARIWAR PASSION, OFF DODDAKAMMANAHALLI ROAD, OFF BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU 560 076

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. N GOWTHAM RAGHUNATH.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19-03-2022, PASSED ON IA NOS.III IN G AND WC NO.236/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE II ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE IA NO.III PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-D. PRELIMINARY HEARING BEFORE COURT.SGH DTD 06.04.2022

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:14011 WP No. 7614 of 2022

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A. No.II in G&WC No.236/2021, dated 19.03.2022, the mother is before this Court. The parties are referred to as mother and father.

¶21

The father has filed G & WC No.236 of 2021, seeking custody of the child, who is aged 6½ years, in that he filed an I.A., seeking visitation rights. The court below considering the overall development of the child and the welfare of the child and also considering the fact that the boy is in the custody of the mother right from the beginning, has passed the order impugned whereby the father was permitted to exercise his visitation rights on every 2^nd and 4^th Saturday and Sunday from 10am to 6pm He is also permitted to contact the child every day through video call, phone call for 15 minutes between 7.30 pm and 7.45 pm. The court observed that the father is entitled to have interim custody of the child on the first half of the

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:14011 WP No. 7614 of 2022

¶23

summer vacation. Further the father while exercising his visitation rights shall not ill-advise or criticize the respondent/mother or her family members and the mother shall also facilitate the father in exercising his visitation rights and also the interim custody of the child on the first half of the summer. The mother was directed to hand out the interim custody of the child in any common place and after exercising the visitation rights, the father shall also return the custody of the child to the mother in a common place. While exercising the visitation rights as well as having interim custody of the child the father shall take utmost care of the child. Aggrieved thereby the mother is before this Court.

¶24

It is the case of the mother that the father has ‘anger management issues’ and he threatens to commit suicide and she has filed certain, SMS, such as WhatsApp messages sent by the husband and also in one of the photographs he is seen with a Harpic bottle. Basing on

¶25

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:14011 WP No. 7614 of 2022

¶26

this, the mother submits that the security and welfare of the child would be a big concern if the father is given the overnight custody of the child.

¶27

On the earlier occasions, when this matter came up before this Court, considering the particular messages that are placed before the Court which appears to be not normal, this court has passed an order on 29.02.2024 observing that the allegations are made against the father that he has suicidal tendency and the mood swings which would not be in the interest of the boy to stay with the father overnight and this court has observed that this court has responsibility to look at the welfare of the child while exercising, ‘parens-patriae jurisdiction’. The messages shows the thought process of the respondent/husband are not normal and directed him to appear before the NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore and thereafter a report is placed before the Court by NIMHANS, stating that unless and until he admits as an in-

¶28

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:14011 WP No. 7614 of 2022

¶29

patient such an examination is not possible. Thereafter, another order is passed on 19.03.2024 observing that when the matter has come up before this court learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that as he is working it would not be possible for him to get admitted as an inpatient. However the whole endeavour of the father is to have the overnight custody of the child for that purpose he is ready to take any kind of tests to be undertaken by the NIMHANS. Hence, this Court had directed them to appear before the Mental Health

¶30

Review Board and directed the NIMHANS to place the report before this Court. A report is placed by NIMHANS stating that as the order is not to the Mental Health Review Board but the direction was to the NIMHANS to place the report, as such they could not place any report.

¶31

5. Today when the matter came up both the father

¶32

and mother are present before this Court. The mother who is present before the court has submitted that she has

¶33

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:14011 WP No. 7614 of 2022

¶34

absolutely no objection for the father to exercise the visitation rights but the overnight custody she is very apprehensive as she has her own doubts about the ‘anger management issues’ of the husband which she had experienced earlier while she was with him and according to her it would not be in the interest of the child to stay overnight with the father.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶36

respondent/husband had denied the same stating that the disputes that are prevailing between the husband and wife should not be stretched to such a level and the husband would not be doing anything which is not in the interest of the minor. Further on the earlier occasions though he is by all means in a position to take care of the child only with an intention have the overnight custody of the child he voluntarily had submitted before the court that he would undergo all the tests whatever the court requires and he requested the overnight custody of the child.

¶37

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:14011 WP No. 7614 of 2022

¶38

Having heard the learned counsel on either

¶39

side, perused the entire material on record. The court below had passed an order giving the visitation rights and also giving custody of the first half of the summer vacation. The mother has no grievance against the other terms and conditions of the order that are passed by the court below her only concern is with regard to the overnight custody and she has placed before the court her inhibitions, her apprehensions about the anger management issues of the husband. Right from 2019 till now the boy is staying with the mother.

¶40

Considering the arguments and submissions of both the counsels and also considering the case of mother, father and ultimately the welfare of the child this Court deems it appropriate to modify the order passed by the court below, only with regard to the interim custody of the child on the first half of the summer vacation and the other part of the order passed by the court below remains

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:14011 WP No. 7614 of 2022

¶43

to be intact and unaltered. The writ petition is disposed of

¶44

as follows:

¶45

i) The interim custody of the child on the first half of summer vacation is concerned the father can have the interim custody of the boy, right from 10 am to 7.00 pm from 4^th of April’2024 to 4^th of May’2024.

¶46

ii) It is submitted that the boy is having the summer camp. Whenever there is a summer camp the father would have the custody of the boy from 1.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., whenever there is no summer camp it would be from 10.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m.

¶47

iii) The mother shall share the details of the summer camp to the father, whenever the child has a summer camp, the father shall pick him up from the summer camp and the mother shall give the details and also inform the same to the concerned.

¶48

iv) Both the parties submits that VEGA City Mall is

¶49

in between their respective houses. When there is no

¶50

¶51

NC: 2024:KHC:14011 WP No. 7614 of 2022

¶52

summer camp, he shall pick the child from Vega's mall and also drop the child there.

¶53

v) If any modification is required, the parties are at liberty to approach the court below. Any of the observations made by this court in any of the order shall not be construed as an expression of this court and, the court shall decide the same in accordance with you.

¶54

vi) The court below, shall dispose of the pending petitions that is MC No. 2673/2019 and G & WC No.236 of 2021 as expeditiously as possible.

¶55

vii) Accordingly, the writ petition is Disposed Off .

¶56

All pending I.A.s may stands closed.

¶57

SD/JUDGE

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

¶59

Mrs Sheetal B Prasad v. Mr Dweep Advani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Sheetal B Prasad v. Mr Dweep Advani

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

Sri. Moses. J Vs Sri. Karthik Murali

Sri. Nagarajaiah Vs the Executive Engineer

Sri Nagesh R Vs Smt Deepika a N

Venkatesh Gopu Vs Smt Gopu Anusha

Sri Sateesh K Shiradwade Vs Smt Shailaja Nagathan

Pebble Bay Owners Association Vs Mr. Sunil Kumar Nahar