Dismissed¶36

Mr. Colin Kenneth Ward v. Mrs. Sushma. J

Karnataka HC19 Aug 2025WP/19631/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Visitation rights; father's access to child; birthday visitation refused; Family Court Bangalore; G & WC No.256/2022; I.A.No.12; Article 227 writ petition; academic issue as dates had passed; party-in-person petitioner; earlier contempt over denied visitation; pending interlocutory applications closed; WP No. 19631 of 2025 (GM-FC); NC: 2025:KHC:32210; decided 19-08-2025.

What did the court decide?

Since the dates for which visitation was sought (19.06.2025 and 30.06.2025) had already passed, going into the merits would serve no useful purpose and the matter had become academic; the Court therefore declined to decide the merits of the visitation application. ¶31

Mr. Colin Kenneth Ward Vs Mrs. Sushma. J — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:32210 WP No. 19631 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 19631 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. COLIN KENNETH WARD S/O DESMOND WARD AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS NO. 280, OPP. NAVADEEP SCHOOL, 1^ST CROSS, GAYATHRI LAYOUT K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE – 560 036

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. COLIN KENNETH WARD (PARTY IN PERSON))

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MRS. SUSHMA J., W/O MR. COLIN KENNETH WARD AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, NO. 73, 7^TH MAIN, 3^RD BLOCK, AYYAPPANAGARA, K.R. PURAM, BANGALORE – 560 036

¶15

(BY SMT.MAHESHWARI D.M., ADVOCATE)

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATE 18.06.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE IV ADDI PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE IN G AND WC NO. 256/2022 ON I.A. NO. 12 ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE-A.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:32210 WP No. 19631 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A.No.12 in G & WC No.256/2022 dated 18.06.2025 by the IV Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, whereby petitioner/father has sought for visitation on 19.06.2025 and 30.06.2025 to celebrate the his birthday and the grandfather's birthday is rejected by the family court, the father is before this court.

¶25

Both the parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience.

¶26

The petitioner/party-in-person submits that earlier also in spite of an order passed by the court he couldn’t exercise visitation and he has filed a contempt and orders were passed. It is submitted that when he has sought for visitation the family court has rejected his request. He has also advanced arguments submitting that if the father is not given visitation on a particular day when it is required i.e., on his birthday and the grandfather's birthday, how the father will develop the bonding with the child.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner/father earlier has exercised the visitation and family

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32210 WP No. 19631 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

court had rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner considering the welfare of the child.

¶31

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. This particular application i.e., I.A.No.12 is filed seeking visitation on a particular day i.e. 19.06.2025 and 30.06.2025 which is already over. Now even if this Court goes into the merits of the matter, no useful purpose would be served and more or less it becomes an academic issue. Hence this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the matter as already 19.06.2025 and 30.02.2025 dates have passed by when the party-in-person is arguing with regard to developing the bonding with the child, this court has specifically indicated that if he wants to file an application seeking visitation, then this court will pass an order directing the Family Court to pass orders in a time bound manner. It is submitted that already the orders are passed by the Family Court. In view of the fact that already those dates are over, this court do not find any reasons to pass any order.

¶32