Shwetabh Sahay Vs Amrita Sinha — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Shwetabh Sahay Vs Amrita Sinha — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief on the custody-modification prayer; the writ petition was disposed of in light of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 09.07.2025 between the parties, with all I.As. in the writ petition standing closed; the parties indicated they would withdraw their pending cases before the appropriate courts.

Issue for consideration

Whether any further orders were required to be passed in the writ petition in view of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 09.07.2025 by which the parties amicably settled all disputes including custody, visitation and other pending litigation. +2 more

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of in the light of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 09.07.2025 between the parties.

Ratio / Principle

All interlocutory applications in the writ petition shall stand closed.

Key takeaways

The Court declined the prayer to strike off or recall the observations in its order dated 26.05.2025, finding no reason to do so since every sentence in that order was based on what transpired in Court; however, considering the interest of the advocate, the Court chose not to take the issue any further or pass any other order.ratio¶53
An advocate is an officer of the Court first and foremost, with responsibility to be fair to the Court before acting as advocate for the client, and no advocate should identify himself with the client or get into the shoes of the client.obiter¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Lalitha Kanneganti, J.), Writ Petition No. 358 of 2024 (GM-FC), decided 09.07.2025: Father's writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 sought modification of the order dated 10.11.2023 in G & WC No. 68/23 of the II Addl. Judge, Family Court at Bangalore, to grant him interim unsupervised custody of the minor daughter for every weekend and 50% of school holidays. After the Court issued bailable warrants (order dated 07.07.2025) over non-production of the child pursuant to its direction dated 05.06.2025 to take her to NIMHANS, and considered the District Child Protection Officer's letter dated 16.06.2025 alleging non-cooperation by the mother and her counsel, the parties filed a Memorandum of Settlement dated 09.07.2025 amicably settling all disputes including custody, visitation and other litigation. Holding that no further orders were required, the Court disposed of the writ petition and closed all I.As. It declined the respondent's advocate's prayer to strike off or recall the observations in the order dated 26.05.2025, noting every sentence therein was based on what transpired in Court, though it refrained from taking the matter further. Observing that an advocate is an officer of the Court first and foremost and must not identify with the client, and that a party must implement unappealed orders, the Court also recorded that the mother had violated the Court's orders from time to time.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 10.11.2023 in G & WC No. 68/23 passed by the Hon'ble II Addl. Judge, Family Court at Bangalore (Annexure-A); the writ petition sought its modification to the extent of granting the petitioner interim unsupervised custody of the parties' minor daughter, Miss Swadha Sahay, for every weekend and 50 percent of school holidays.¶17
II Addl. Judge, Family Court at Bangalore · 10.11.2023
Prior proceeding
By order dated 07.07.2025 this Court issued bailable warrants against the mother (respondent) and directed the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, to produce the mother and the daughter before the Court on 09.07.2025 at 10:30 a.m.; the mother appeared before the Court at 02:30 p.m. the same day.¶24
Prior proceeding
By order dated 05.06.2025 the Court had directed that the child, Swadha Sahay, be taken to NIMHANS; per the District Child Protection Officer's letter, officials visited on 16.06.2025 but the respondent and her counsel refused to accompany them.¶31
Prior proceeding
Letter dated 16.06.2025 of the District Child Protection Officer, District Child Protection Unit, Bangalore West, Anekal Taluk, reporting the respondent's and her counsel's refusal to cooperate, was referred to by this Court in its order dated 26.06.2025.¶30
Prior proceeding
On the basis of the Child Protection Officer's report, the Court discussed the conduct of the advocate for the respondent/mother and asked him to file an affidavit by 04.07.2025; the affidavit was placed before the Court on 09.07.2025.¶34
Prior proceeding
By his affidavit, the advocate for the respondent prayed that the observations made by the Court vide order dated 26.05.2025 be struck off or recalled.¶38
Prior proceeding
Per the advocate's affidavit, the order dated 15.06.2025 was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of SLP.No.17006/2025.¶38
Prior proceeding
Memorandum of Settlement dated 09.07.2025 between the parties, amicably settling all disputes including custody, visitation and other litigation pending between them; the parties stated they would file appropriate petitions before the appropriate Court to withdraw the cases.¶29