Mr.Bharat Pundalik Naik Vs Ramitha Bharat Naik

MR.BHARAT PUNDALIK NAIK S/O. MR.PUNDALIK MANJUNATH NAIK AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS PERMANENT ADDRESS B-1001, EXCEL TOWERS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY A.S.MARG, NEAR BHAVANI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE OPP. IIT MAIN GATE, POWAI, MUMBAI-400 076 ALSO RESIDING AT: 4250 EL CAMINO REAL, APT C323 PALO ALTO, CA 94306 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. SIDDHARTH PADMARAJ DEASI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

RAMITHA BHARAT NAIK ALIAS RAMITHA DINESH CHITLOOR D/O. MR. C.J. DINESH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 8/16, PUTTANNA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU- 560 004

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT.PRAMILA NESARGI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT.MUTAGUPPI RAMACHANDRA PUTTA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:30600 WP No. 17437 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN G AND W.C. NO. 135/2024 PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.2 and 3 in G & WC.No.135/2024 dated 24.01.2025 by the VI Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru whereby the father is permitted to make the audio or video call to his both the children half an hour on every week either on Saturday or Sunday convenient to the children and the mother was directed to co-operate in communicating the children with the father.

¶25

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier when the order was passed by the Family Court, the father was in U.S. and for his cross examination he has come to India and he is attending the Court. As the father is at present physically in India he may be permitted to have the access to the children and he will complete the cross examination as per the schedule.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30600 WP No. 17437 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

¶29

respondent submits that already there is an order in the contempt proceedings wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court considering the submissions made on behalf of both the parties had observed that the father shall have the same rights that is access to video and audio call pending disposal of the G and WC. petition. The G & WC. petition shall be expeditiously dispose of the matter within 6 months and that 6 months period is already expired.

¶30

This Court had asked the parties to appear before this Court and had interacted with both the parties and the children. No doubt a submission is made by both the counsels that with the interim arrangement, the matter can be disposed of. Admittedly, at that point of time, the father was in US. Now, he has come down to India to face the trial. At this point of time, as he is attending the Family Court and the mother is also attending the Court, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the order for visitation and father can exercise the visitation in the Bangalore Mediation Centre.

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30600 WP No. 17437 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

As per the order dated 05.08.2025 passed by this Court, the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and a memo is filed to that effect. Whatever is the amount that is paid, it is subjected to the further orders to be passed by the Family Court in the pending proceedings. It is submitted that he is leaving to U.S. on 10.08.2025. Hence, requested for visitation on 08.08.2025 and 09.08.2025 between 11 am. to 1.00 pm. in the Bangalore Mediation Centre.

¶34

It is submitted that though it is holiday, the Mediation Centre is open. Hence, the father is permitted to exercise the visitation between 11.00 am. to 1.00 pm. at Bangalore Mediation Centre. In the light of the above arrangement nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition.

¶35

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶36

All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

¶37

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶38

MEG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 66

Mr.Bharat Pundalik Naik v. Ramitha Bharat Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Bharat Pundalik Naik v. Ramitha Bharat Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandan R Vs Smt Vidyashree

Dr. Pallavi A.S. Vs Sri Vinay J

Sri. Gangadhar Chandrashekar Uppin Vs Smt. M. C. Shylaja

Sri Anand Kumar Vs Sri H P Lokesh

Sri Sanjay Vs Smt Usha

The Legal Manager Vs Yogesha