Dismissed¶65

Mrs Garima Mishra v. Mr Aparmaya Shukla

Karnataka HC20 Feb 2026WP/3104/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Child custody and visitation; G&WC No.35/2021; interim visitation to father upheld (Saturdays 12-2 p.m., festivals, birthday); permanent custody refused where claim rests solely on alleged breach of visitation order; welfare of minor child with physiological disorder; contempt/breach allegation insufficient for custody switch; writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 dismissed; High Court of Karnataka; GM-FC.

What did the court decide?

None; both writ petitions were dismissed. The Court additionally directed the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru to dispose of, without delay, any interlocutory applications seeking directions for the child's immediate medical care and attention (per para 69). ¶65

Mrs Garima Mishra Vs Mr Aparmaya Shukla — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶65

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of certiorari should be issued quashing the District Court's order dated 21.01.2023 on I.A No.I in G&WC No.35/2021 granting the father interim custody/visitation of the minor child (wife's challenge, WP No.3104/2023). +1 more

¶49

Court's answer

The wife is required to abide by the order rendered on I.A No.I until that order is set aside or modified.

¶62

Ratio / Principle

Merely on the allegation that the wife has committed breach of the order rendered on I.A No.I, the husband cannot seek permanent custody of the child.

¶62

Key takeaways

The District Court, having considered the entire factual scenario and the welfare of the child, passed reasoned orders; this Court found no grounds to entertain either writ petition.ratio¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha, 20.02.2026) dismissed two cross writ petitions under Articles 226/227 arising from interlocutory orders of the VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural in G&WC No.35/2021 concerning the minor daughter Saanvika Shukla alias Meethi, who suffers from a physiological disorder. The District Court had allowed the father's I.A No.I in part, granting interim custody/visitation every Saturday from 12.00 noon to 02.00 p.m., four hours on Dasara, Diwali, Christmas, Ugadi, Holi, Gowri/Ganesh Chaturthi and four hours on 28th September (the child's birthday). The wife's attempt to quash that order (WP No.3104/2023) failed, the Court holding she must abide by it until set aside or modified. The husband's attempt (WP No.21797/2023), founded on her alleged continuous breach (contempt proceedings noted in argument), to overturn the rejection of his custody application and obtain permanent custody also failed: the Court held that an allegation of breach alone cannot ground a claim for permanent custody, and that the District Court's welfare-oriented orders were reasoned. The trial court was directed to dispose without delay of any applications seeking directions for the child's medical care.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:10509 WP No. 3104 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21797 of 2023

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO. 3104 OF 2023 (GM-FC)

¶8

C/W

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 21797 OF 2023 (GM-FC)

¶10

IN WP NO. 3104/2023

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

MRS. GARIMA MISHRA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O APARMAYA SHUKLA RESIDING AT FLAT E5-903, SNN RAJ GREENBAY APARTMENTS, ELECTRONIC CITY , PHASE-2, BENGALURU-560100.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

(BY SRI. MURTUZA ALI BAIG., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. OMRAN KHAN., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

MR. APARMAYA SHUKLA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O SUSHIL KUMAR SHUKLA RESIDING AT 5-B, KASTURBANAGAR, NEAR TUBEWELL SIGRA, CHITTUPUR, MAHMOOR GANJ, VARANASI, UTTAR PRADESH-221010 ALSO AT, FLAT E5- 903, SNN RAJ GREENBAY APARTMENTS , ELECTRONIC CITY, PHASE-2, BENGALURU-560100

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:10509 WP No. 3104 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21797 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

PRESENTLY AT FLAT NO.534, RAINDROPS APARTMENT HARALUR ROAD, AMABALIPURA, BENGALURU-560102.

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SRI. P. B. RAJU., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A RAVISHANKAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.VI ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL AT BENGALURU, DATED 21.01.2023 IN IA NO.1 FILED IN G & WC NO.35/2021 PRODUCED HEREIN AS ANNEXURE-A TO THIS WRIT PETITION.

¶25

IN WP NO. 21797/2023

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

MR. APARMAYA SHUKLA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O. SUSHIL KUMAR SHUKLA, R/AT 5-B, KASTURABANAGAR, NEAR TUBEWELL SIGRA, CHITTUPUR, MAHOOR GANJ, VARANASI, UTTAR PRADESH-221 010.

¶28

ALSO AT FLAT E-5, 903, SNN RAJ GREENBAY APARTMENTS, ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE-2, KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 100.

¶29

PRESENTLY AT FLAT NO. 534, RAIN DROP APARTMENTS,

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:10509 WP No. 3104 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21797 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

HARALUR ROAD, AMBALIPURA, BENGALURU-560 102.

¶33

...PETITIONER

¶34

(BY SRI. P. B. RAJU., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A RAVISHANKAR., ADVOCATE)

¶35

AND:

¶36

MRS. GARIMA MISHRA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, W/O. APARMYA SHUKLA, CURRENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT E-5, 903, SNN RAJ GREENBAY APARTMENTS, ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE-2, KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 100.

¶37

...RESPONDENT

¶38

(BY SRI. MURTUZA ALI BAIG., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. OMRAN KHAN., ADVOCATE)

¶39

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 17.8.2023 PASSED ON IA DTD 5.4.2023 (IA NO.2) BY THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN G AND WC NO.35/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY ALLOWING INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION DTD 5.4.2023 (IA NO.2) FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND HANDOVER THE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE CHILD SAANVIKA SHUKLA ALIAS MEETHI TO THE PETITIONER.

¶40

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

¶41

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶42

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:10509 WP No. 3104 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21797 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

ORAL ORDER

¶45

Heard Sri.P.B.Raju who represents Sri.A.

¶46

Ravishankar learned counsel for the petitioner in writ petition No.21797/2023 who also represents the respondent in the connected matter. Also heard Sri. Murtuza Ali Baig, who represents Sri.Omran Khan learned counsel on record for the petitioner in writ petition No.3104/2023 who also represents the respondent in the connected matter.

¶47

As the parties in both the writ petitions are

¶48

common and as their relationship is not in dispute, they will hereafter be referred to as husband and wife.

¶49

While writ petition No.3104/2023 is filed by wife seeking the Court to issue a writ of certiorari and to quash the order that is rendered by the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural on I.A No.I in G&WC No.35/2021 dated 21.01.2023, writ petition No.21797/2023 is filed by husband seeking the Court to

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:10509 WP No. 3104 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21797 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

set aside the order that is rendered by the same court in

¶53

the same case however on the order dated 17.08.2023.

¶54

Father filed a petition that is I.A No.I seeking visitation rights of his child Ms.Saanvika Shukla. District Court allowed the said interlocutory application in part and granted interim custody of the child to father on every Saturday from 12.00 noon to 02.00 p.m and for four hours on festival days i.e., Dasara, Diwali, Christmas, Ugadi, Holi, Gowri/Ganesh Chaturthi and for four hours on 28^th September being the birthday of the child. Aggrieved by the order thus passed, wife filed writ petition No.3104/2023.

¶55

Projecting that wife is guilty of continuous breach of the order passed on I.A No.I, husband filed an application seeking custody of the child. The said interlocutory application was dismissed by order dated 17.08.2023 and aggrieved by the same, husband filed writ petition No.21797/2023.

¶56

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:10509 WP No. 3104 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21797 of 2023

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Learned counsel who represents wife submits that as on the date of order in I.A No.I, the child was aged around 3 years and as the child of that age could not be handed over to husband, the orders on I.A No.I were challenged. However as of now, wife is complying the order and thus, necessary orders may be passed in the said writ petition.

¶59

Learned counsel who represents husband submits that wife never obliged the orders passed on I.A No.I and hence husband initiated contempt proceedings against wife and in the order rendered in the contempt petition also there is a clear observation that wife committed breach of the orders on I.A. No.I. Learned counsel states that the child needs proper treatment and husband is ready and willing to take the child to any of the best specialists available and incur all medical expenditure and thus custody has to be given to the father.

¶60

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:10509 WP No. 3104 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21797 of 2023

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

There is no denial of the fact that the child suffers from physiological disorder. Material available on record reveals that the husband and wife are on loggerheads since the birth of the child. wife is required to abide by the order rendered on I.A No.I until the said order is set aside or modified. However only basing on the allegation that wife has committed breach of the order rendered on I.A No.I, husband cannot seek permanent custody of the child.

¶63

District Court taking into consideration the entire factual scenario and the welfare of the child passed reasoned orders. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds to entertain these writ petitions. Resultantly, the following:-

¶64

ORDER

¶65

i. Both the writ petitions are dismissed.

¶66

ii. In the light of the submission that is made by Sri.P.B.Raju who represents the husband that

¶67

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:10509 WP No. 3104 of 2023 C/W WP No. 21797 of 2023

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

the child needs immediate medical care and attention, in case any application seeking any directions for such medical care are filed, the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is directed to dispose of those interlocutory applications without delay.

¶70

SD/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)

¶71

JUDGE

¶72

VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Mrs Garima Mishra v. Mr Aparmaya Shukla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Garima Mishra v. Mr Aparmaya Shukla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Shiva Kumar C v Vs Smt Shantha T N

Smt Vidyalakshmi J Vs Sri Mahadeva M

M. Manjunath Vs Smt. B. Mamatha

Mr Krishna Kumar B J @ Raju Vs Mrs J Kavitha @ Divya

Kuldeep Singh Bhatia Vs Smt Kawaljeet Kour

Sri. Ullas Poojari Vs Sri. Nagaraj Dixt