Allowed

Smt. Sowmya v. Sathisha H.C.

Karnataka HC22 Aug 2024WP/8677/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by a mother denied effective visitation despite court orders, alleging parental alienation. The High Court found the father had tutored and alienated the children, granted her interim custody of both children pending G&WC No.27/2023, and set aside the lower court's order.

What did the court decide?

Interim custody of both children given to mother; order dated 20.01.2024 in G&WC No.27/2023 set aside.

Smt. Sowmya Vs Sathisha H.C. — Child Custody and Guardianship | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:33872 WP No. 8677 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 8677 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SOWMYA, W/O. SATHISHA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O. BISALAHALLI VILLAGE, KONANURU HOBLI, ARAKALAGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. H.M. GIRISHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.J. ALVA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SATHISHA H.C, S/O CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O HIPPALI VILLAGE, MALLIPATTANA HOBLI, ARAKALAGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 102.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. SATHISHA H.C, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.1.24 PASSED BY THE LEARNED

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:33872 WP No. 8677 of 2024

¶19

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ARAKALAGUD IN G AND WC NO. 27/2023 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Aggrieved by the order dated 20.01.2024 passed in G&WC No.27/2023 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Arakalagud, the petitioner-wife is before this Court.

¶24

On 18.04.2024, this Court had passed an order directing the mother, father and the children to be present before the Court for conciliation on 23.04.2024. On 24.04.2024, this Court had passed an order that on every Friday between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., the mother can meet the children at the C.D.P.O. Office, Arakalagudu Taluk, Hassan District and the father shall see to that the children interacts with the mother and directed the matter to be listed after Summer Vacation, 2024.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33872 WP No. 8677 of 2024

¶26

When the matter came up on 20.06.2024 and on that day, the father was absent and the mother was present before the Court. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-father submits that he has already informed the husband about the hearing today. It is submitted by the mother that on all the dates of visitation, the children were kept in the car by closing the glasses and just she made to stand there looking at them and on all the days of visitation. This Court in the earlier order, had observed about the father tutoring and how the kids are not responding to the mother. The Court observed that the absence of the father shows that he had no respect towards orders of the Court and directed the matter to be listed on 08.07.2024. Thereafter, on 08.07.2024, as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, the matter was directed to be listed for 'dismissal' on 15.07.2024. On 15.07.2024, at the request of learned counsel for the respondent-father, the matter was directed to be listed on 24.07.2024. Again on 24.07.2024 also, the matter was adjourned to 31.07.2024.

¶27

On 31.07.2024, it is submitted by the counsel for

¶28

the respondent-husband that he could not speak to the client

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:33872 WP No. 8677 of 2024

¶31

over phone and he has addressed the letter and if no instructions are received, he wants to retire from the case. Then on 14.08.2024, a memo of retirement is filed before the Court. The same was ordered. Permitted the counsel to retire from the case. This Court directed the Registry to delete the name of the learned counsel for the respondent-husband and print the name of the party and directed the matter to be listed on 22.08.2024.

¶32

Today, when the matter is listed, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent-husband and learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife submits that in spite of an order passed by the Court, the mother is not able to see the children. When this Court had interacted with the children, they are not even interested to look at the mother. The mother was continuously pleading the kids and they were reluctant and there appears to be no reason for them not to talk with the mother. When the Court has specifically asked them, they did not give any reason why they do not want to talk to the mother. It appears that because of the differences between the father and the mother. The father has completely alienated the children from the mother. The mother was

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:33872 WP No. 8677 of 2024

¶34

continuously coming to the Court for seeking a relief of interim custody of the children. The trial Court had passed an order granting visitation on 1^st and 3^rd Saturday of every month. Aggrieved thereby, the mother is before this Court. Contrary to the orders of this Court, the petitioner-wife has to place before the Court, the report of the Child Development Officer, Taluk Panchayat, where the visitation was exercised, it shows that on seven occasions, the father was absent and within in a matter of 20-30 minutes, they left the place.

¶35

In the considered opinion of this Court, it is a case of parental alienation, which cannot be permitted and the children require the care and affection of both the mother and the father. The father cannot tutor the children in such a way, which is detrimental to the welfare of the children. The conduct of the father all through shows that he has no respect to the orders passed by the Court. This Court while exercising parens patriae jurisdiction is much concerned with the welfare of the children than any other aspect. It has become the order of the day in all the cases where the parent who is having the custody of the children is making all possible efforts to see that the child is reluctant to meet the other parent. In their ego tussle

¶36

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:33872 WP No. 8677 of 2024

¶37

they are completely ignoring the welfare of the children and their only concern is who will win the battle and how they can hurt the other spouse. This Court is not concerned with the interse disputes of the parents and the parents have no right to play with the lives of the children. Father right from the beginning is not obeying the orders of the Court and he did not permit the mother to exercise the visitation as ordered by the Court.

¶38

Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is a fit case where the custody has to be shifted to the mother. So that the mother will get an opportunity to bond with the children. The mother is entitled to have the interim custody of the children pending further orders in G&WC No.27/2023.

¶39

In the light of the above discussions, this Court is passing the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(i) The interim custody of both the children is given to the mother, forthwith. Father shall handover the children to the mother.

¶42

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:33872 WP No. 8677 of 2024

¶43

(ii) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order dated 20.01.2024 passed in G&WC No.27/2023 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Arakalagud, is set aside.

¶44

(iii) All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶45

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶46

KA CT: BHK

Smt. Sowmya v. Sathisha H.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sowmya v. Sathisha H.C.

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 P S Prakash @ Panchi Vs Sri Jagdguru Murugarajendra

Sri Muniraju Vs Sri T Revanna

Sri Lingaraj M Vs Smt. Sahana R

Sri Dhananjaya R Vs Smt S Chaithra

D Jawahar Vs Mrs.Priya Jose Joshua

Sri.Krishna Murthy Vs M/S Prabhavathi Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd.