Smt. Suguna Damarla Vs Sri. Gopala Krishna Subbarayanapalli

SMT. SUGUNA DAMARLA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.75, 3RD CROSS, CHIKKA RAMAIAH LAYOUT, JINKE THIMMANAHALLI, VARANASI MAIN ROAD, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BENGALURU - 560016. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANSHUMAN A.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. GOPALA KRISHNA SUBBARAYANAPALLI, S/O. SRI SANJEEVARAYUDU SUBBARAYANAPALLI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 75, 3RD CROSS, CHIKKA RAMAIAH LAYOUT, JINKE THIMMANAHALLI, VARANASI MAIN ROAD,

¶13

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:8915 WP No. 21902 of 2025 C/W WP No. 29886 of 2025

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560016

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. ANKITH S. REDDY,ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2025 PASSED BY THE 3^RD ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU IN G AND WC NO.130/2024 REJECTING THE PETITIONERS APPLICATION ON I.A.NO.5 UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT, 1890 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶19

IN WP NO. 29886/2025:

¶20

BETWEEN:

¶21

MR. GOPALA KRISHNA SUBBARAYANAPALLI AGE ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O SANJEEVARAYUDU SUBBARAYANAPALLI, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: H.NO.75, 3RD CROSS, CHIKKARAMAIAH LAYOUT, JINKETHIMMANAHALLI, VARANASI MAIN ROAD, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560016.

¶22

...PETITIONER

¶23

(BY SRI. ANKITH S REDDY.,ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

MRS. SUGUNA DAMARLA AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶26

- 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:8915 WP No. 21902 of 2025 C/W WP No. 29886 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

W/O GOPALA KRISHNA SUBBARAYANAPALLI, LAST KNOWN ADDRESS: H. NO. 58, 1ST FLOOR, 19TH CROSS ROAD, SBI BANK COLONY, AKSHAYA NAGAR, NEAR BHANU, SYMPHONY APARTMENTS,

¶29

RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560016

¶30

...RESPONDENT

¶31

(BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANSHUMAN A.,ADVOCATE)

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 01/02/2025 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE-A TO THE EXTENT OF GRANTING THE INTERIM VISITATION RIGHTS TO THE RESPONDENT.

¶33

THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:8915 WP No. 21902 of 2025 C/W WP No. 29886 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

ORAL ORDER

¶39

Heard Sri.Anshuman.A learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.21902/2025 who is also representing respondent in W.P.No.29886/2025. Also heard Sri.Ankith S

¶40

Reddy learned counsel for the respondent in W.P.No.21902/2025 who is appearing for petitioner in W.P.No.29886/2025.

¶41

Both the writ petitions arise out of the order

¶42

that is rendered by the Court of III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on I.A.No.V in G&WC No.130/2024 dated 01.02.2025. The status of parties to the writ petitions is not in dispute. Therefore, they will hereinafter be referred to as wife and husband.

¶43

When husband filed a petition under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, wife filed a petition seeking physical custody of their children by name Master Vedagna Kritik Subbarayanapalli and Master Kavigna Kritik Subbarayanapalli. The version of the wife is that, bearing

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:8915 WP No. 21902 of 2025 C/W WP No. 29886 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

lot of pain and efforts, she gave birth to twin children through IVF and she is thereby entitled for the custody of the twin children. The contention of husband is that he is having physical custody of the children, the children are safe and comfortable with him. His wife left the matrimonial home on her own accord, being employee she has not spent anything for the welfare of children and having regard to her attitude she is not entitled for custody. Family Court through the impugned order permitted mother to avail visitation rights between 06.00 p.m. and 07.00 p.m. on all working days and between 03.00 p.m. and 06.00 p.m. on Saturday, Sunday and other general holidays.

¶47

Wife is before this Court challenging the impugned order and contending that when she claimed physical custody of children, Family Court granted only visitation rights and thus, the order is unsustainable. On the other hand, husband is before this Court stating that grant of visitation rights is improper.

¶48

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:8915 WP No. 21902 of 2025 C/W WP No. 29886 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Family Court in the impugned order discussed at length with regard to merits of the matter. Family Court also made a mention that it interacted with children and children informed the Court that they are happy with their father as well as with their mother, but they expressed their willingness to stay with their father in his house and they preferred to spend time with mother. The Court also observed that father is attending the needs of children and maintaining them and mother did not assign any specific reason or circumstances which will lead to apprehension of danger to the safety and well being of the children.

¶51

Paramount welfare of the children is the prime consideration. Family Court taking into consideration totality of facts and circumstances of the case and with an intention to see that children gets attention and affection of both mother and father, gave visitation rights to the mother. Thus, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the reasons given by Family Court for taking

¶52

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:8915 WP No. 21902 of 2025 C/W WP No. 29886 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

such a decision. Therefore, this Court is of the view that both the writ petitions lack merits.

¶55

In the light of the submission that is made by the learned counsel who represents the husband regarding the place of visit and that wife will create trouble to the neighbours in case she visits his place, liberty is granted to the husband to move an appropriate application before the Family Court to change the place of visit. Untill orders are passed in application if any filed to that effect, the impugned order shall remain in force.

¶56

In the light of the submission made learned counsel who represents the wife that the birthday of children is on 15.02.2026 and mother intends to meet the children on the said day and husband who is present in person before this Court states that he will take children to the Time Zone Sports Area, Phoenix Mall, mahadevapura Bengaluru at 11.00 a.m. so as to accommodate his wife to see the

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:8915 WP No. 21902 of 2025 C/W WP No. 29886 of 2025

¶58