Dismissed¶41

Pradeep G R v. Ms Divya R a

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2025WP/32603/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Child custody/access dispute - writ under Article 227 of the Constitution - Family Court Bengaluru, G & WC No.264/2021 - order appointing Child Psychiatrist and directing counselling sessions for father, mother and minor son - child's refusal/utmost reluctance to meet father - possible influence of custodial parent - writ court declines to analyse causes itself - writ petition dismissed, pending I.As. closed - WP No. 32603 of 2024 (GM-FC) - decided 09.07.2025 - Lalitha Kanneganti, J.

What did the court decide?

After interaction with the boy, the mother and the father, the court found the family court's order to be a well reasoned order which is required in the facts and circumstances of the case, and found no reasons to interfere with it. ¶37

Pradeep G R Vs Ms Divya R a — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 29.10.2024 passed on I.A.No.28 in G & WC No.264/2021 by the II Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru - appointing a Child Psychiatrist and directing the father, mother and child to attend counseling sessions - should be quashed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶17

Court's answer

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The causes of the child's utmost reluctance and adamance in refusing to meet the father (possibly the influence of the custodial parent, possibly other reasons) cannot be analysed by the writ court itself; this is why the family court directed the parties to go before a psychiatrist to ascertain the child's mental well-being and emotions.

¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (Lalitha Kanneganti, J.) - Father's writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the Family Court (II Addl. Prl. Judge, Bengaluru) order dated 29.10.2024 on I.A.No.28 in G & WC No.264/2021, which appointed a Child Psychiatrist to ascertain the mental well-being and emotions of the minor son and directed the father, mother and child to attend all counseling sessions so as to ascertain why the child was not interested to meet and interact with the father - DISMISSED. Acting on earlier interim orders, the court had interacted with the father, mother and the 9th-standard boy in chambers and observed the boy's utmost reluctance and adamance about meeting the father; it held that the reasons (possible influence of the custodial parent or otherwise) were not for the writ court to analyse, found the family court's order well reasoned and required in the facts and circumstances, and declined to interfere. All pending I.As. in the writ petition were ordered closed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:25054 WP No. 32603 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 32603 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

PRADEEP G.R., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O. LATE, G.RAJAPPA, R/AT NO.562, 20^TH MAIN, 36^TH CROSS, 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.M.T.NANAIAH, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI.TUMBIGI PRABHUGOUDA BASAVANTARAYAGOUDA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MS. DIVYA R.A., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, D/O.AMBIKAPATHY, R/AT.NO.3/8, 2^ND CROSS, GANESHA BLOCK, SULTHANPALYA, R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032 ALSO AT, NO.7, 1^ST FLOOR, 1^ST CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, ABOVE SYNDICATE BANK, ATHMANANDA COLONY, SULTHAN PALYA, R.T.NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 032

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI.SIDDESHWARA B., ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 29.10.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO. XXVIII IN G AND WC NO. 264/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:25054 WP No. 32603 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU PRODUCED WIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DIMISS THE IA NO. XXVIII FILED THEREIN PRODUCED WIDE ANNEXURE-E.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A.No.28 in G & WC No.264/2021 dated 29.10.2024 by the II Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, the father is before this court.

¶26

The parties are referred to as father and mother for the sake of convenience.

¶27

The family court by orders impugned has directed to appoint the Child Psychiatrist to ascertain the mental well being and emotions of the child. The father, mother and the child were directed to appear before Psychiatrist/Counselor to resolve the dispute. The parties were directed to appear for all the counseling sessions to be fixed by the Psychiatrist/ Counselor in the best interest of the son. Both the parties were directed to behave like responsible parents before the child

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25054 WP No. 32603 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

psychiatrist and thereby assist to ascertain why the child is not interested to meet and interact with the father.

¶31

Further, this court had passed interim orders directing the father to meet the child and also directed the parties to appear before the court in the chambers. This court had interacted with the father, mother and the boy. The boy is showing utmost reluctance to meet the father. The boy who is studying in 9th standard is very adamant to meet the father. There could be various reasons for the said attitude of the child towards the father. There may be the influence of the custodial parent or there may be any other reasons. This court is not competent to analyze those reasons and come to a correct conclusion. Probably that is the reason why the family court had directed the parties to go before the psychiatrist to find out the mental well being and emotions of the child. Apart from this, when the father is also aware how the son is behaving with him, why the father is aggrieved by this order, this court is not able to understand.

¶32