Mrs Katherine Carl Vs Mr Rakesh Christopher — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2026)

Mrs Katherine Carl Vs Mr Rakesh Christopher — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 should be initiated against the accused for the alleged willful disobedience of the Family Court order dated 04.09.2024 in M.C.No.5505/2024, given the subsequent course of the custody proceedings. +1 more

Court's answer

Given that the Family Court had disposed of the custody proceedings granting custody of the child to the accused, the Court held it was not apposite to initiate any proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Ratio / Principle

The contempt complaint was, accordingly, closed.

Key takeaways

The Court clarified that the order closing the complaint would not preclude the complainant from availing any remedy that is otherwise available, albeit in accordance with law.ratio¶37
On I.A.1/2026, paragraph 4 of the order dated 06.03.2026 was rectified to read that the learned Family Court had disposed of an interim application and had granted custody of the child to the accused till the disposal of the petition (and not finally disposed of the petition itself).ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Contempt Petition No. 883 of 2025, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (coram: Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha; per the Chief Justice), decided 06.03.2026, with a rectifying order dated 24.03.2026 on I.A.1/2026. The complainant, Mrs. Katherine Carl, invoked Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the accused, Mr. Rakesh Christopher, alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in M.C.No.5505/2024, whereby the parties' memorandum of settlement was taken on record and the accused was permitted to visit the child weekly twice on every Sunday and Monday at a common place. She alleged that on 02.07.2025 the accused, under the pretext of a visit, removed the child from her custody and declined to return her despite several appeals. The accused contended the child was voluntarily handed over to him (annexing WhatsApp messages), and had filed a custody petition, G and WC No.260/2025, in which the Family Court passed an ex parte interim injunction dated 19.07.2025 restraining the complainant from forcibly taking away the child. Informed that the Family Court had disposed of those proceedings granting custody of the child to the accused, the Court held it not apposite to initiate any proceedings under the 1971 Act and closed the complaint, expressly clarifying that the closure would not preclude the complainant from availing any otherwise available remedy in accordance with law. By the order dated 24.03.2026, paragraph 4 was rectified to record that the Family Court had disposed of an interim application granting custody to the accused till the disposal of the petition, and counsel Sri Mohammed Kamran Khan and Ms Reshma Khanum were directed to be shown as appearing for the complainant. No contempt was initiated; no quantum or costs were awarded.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13717-DB CCC No. 883 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 883 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

MRS. KATHERINE CARL AGED 31 YEARS PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS AMIDHA PRINCY FLORIDA D/O MR. SUDHIR KUMAR NO. 341, 2^ND CROSS 5^TH MAIN, NGEF EAST BANGALORE - 560 038

…COMPLAINANT

(BY SRI PRUTHA BHARATHI, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka

AND:

MR. RAKESH CHRISTOPHER AGED 38 YEARS PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS RAKESH RAJAN. D S/O LATE N. DAS APT. NO. 401, SKS INFINITY NO.121, 3^RD 'A' CROSS KASTURI NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 043

…ACCUSED

(BY SRI MANU SHANKAR B., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. P BHAGYA LAKSHMI, ADVOCATE)

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13717-DB CCC No. 883 of 2025

HC-KAR

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 10 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED AS HE HAS WILLFULLY DISOBEYED THE ORDER OF I^ST ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE, DATED 04.09.2024 PASSED IN M.C. 5505/2024 AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging

willful disobedience of the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in M.C.No.5505/2024.

The said petition was disposed of by taking on record the memorandum of settlement entered into between the parties. In terms of the said settlement, the accused was at liberty to visit the child weekly twice on every Sunday and Monday at a common place. The complainant alleges that the said arrangement was

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13717-DB CCC No. 883 of 2025

HC-KAR

being adhered to. However, on 02.07.2025, the accused, under the pretext of visiting the child, removed the child from her custody. It is alleged that, thereafter, the accused has declined to hand over the child to her, despite several appeals made by her in this regard.

It is the accused's case that the complainant had voluntarily handed over the child to him as she did not wish to take the responsibility of his custody. He has also annexed some WhatsApp messages in support of his plea. Most importantly, the accused has thereafter moved the Family Court and filed a petition for custody of the minor child in G and WC No.260/2025. The learned Family Court had passed an interim order dated 19.07.2025, granting an exparte injunction restraining the complainant from forcibly taking away the child from the custody of the accused.

This Court is informed that the learned Family Court has disposed of the said petition, and granted custody of the child to the accused.

In the given circumstances, we do not consider it apposite to initiate any proceedings under the Contempt to Courts Act, 1971.

The complaint is, accordingly, closed.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13717-DB CCC No. 883 of 2025

HC-KAR

We, however, clarify that this order would not preclude the complainant from availing any remedy, that is otherwise available, albeit in accordance with law.

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13717-DB CCC No. 883 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [MRS KATHERINE CARL VS. MR RAKESH CHRISTOPHER]

24.03.2026

(VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

ORDER ON I.A.1/2026

This is an application filed by the complainant seeking modification of the order dated 06.03.2026, whereby the present contempt petition was disposed of. Paragraph 4 of the said order is rectified to read as under :

"This Court is informed that the learned Family Court has disposed of an interim application and has granted the custody of the child to the accused till the disposal of the petition."

The names of the counsel Sri. Mohammed Kamran Khan and Ms. Reshma Khanum, be shown as appearing for the complainant, in the cause title of the final orders.

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

SD List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 04.09.2024 in M.C.No.5505/2024 disposing of the petition by taking on record the parties' memorandum of settlement, under which the accused was permitted to visit the child weekly twice (every Sunday and Monday) at a common place; the complainant alleged this order was willfully disobeyed.¶25
Learned I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru · 04.09.2024
Prior proceeding
The Family Court disposed of M.C.No.5505/2024 by taking on record the memorandum of settlement entered into between the parties; under the settlement the accused was at liberty to visit the child weekly twice on every Sunday and Monday at a common place.¶26
Prior proceeding
As alleged by the complainant, on 02.07.2025 the accused, under the pretext of visiting the child, removed the child from her custody and thereafter declined to hand over the child despite several appeals made by her.¶29
Prior proceeding
Accused's defence: the complainant had voluntarily handed over the child to him as she did not wish to take the responsibility of his custody; he annexed some WhatsApp messages in support of this plea.¶30
Prior proceeding
The accused moved the Family Court and filed a petition for custody of the minor child in G and WC No.260/2025.¶30
Prior proceeding
In G and WC No.260/2025, the Family Court passed an interim order dated 19.07.2025 granting an ex parte injunction restraining the complainant from forcibly taking away the child from the custody of the accused.¶30
Prior proceeding
The Court was informed that the Family Court had disposed of the said custody petition granting custody of the child to the accused; by the rectifying order dated 24.03.2026 (I.A.1/2026), paragraph 4 was corrected to record that an interim application had been disposed of granting custody to the accused till the disposal of the petition.¶31
Prior proceeding
The complainant filed the present civil contempt petition under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying to initiate contempt proceedings against the accused for the alleged willful disobedience of the Family Court order dated 04.09.2024.¶19
Prior proceeding
By order dated 24.03.2026 on I.A.1/2026, the complainant's application seeking modification of the order dated 06.03.2026 was dealt with: paragraph 4 of that order was rectified, and counsel Sri Mohammed Kamran Khan and Ms Reshma Khanum were directed to be shown as appearing for the complainant in the cause title of the final orders.¶51