Chirag Thomas Vs Teena Chandrashekhara — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Chirag Thomas Vs Teena Chandrashekhara — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Family Court's interim order confining the petitioner-father to twice-monthly daytime visitation (instead of interim custody on all Saturdays and Sundays and half of school vacations, with overnight stays) warrants modification by way of certiorari under Article 227. +1 more

Court's answer

On going through the impugned order, the Court held that the Family Court, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, took a right decision in respect of the visitation rights, and this Court does not find any grounds for interference with the twice-monthly daytime visitation arrangement.

Ratio / Principle

Unlike adults, children tend to stay in the same atmosphere and surroundings; occasionally staying overnight at a place other than the child's ordinary stay may cause tremendous stress and an adverse impact on the well-being of a five-year-old child.

Key takeaways

The writ petition as well as I.A.No.1/2026 (seeking interim custody of the child from 27.02.2026 to 02.03.2026) are dismissed.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha) — Writ Petition No. 34938 of 2025 (GM-FC), decided 19.02.2026. A father challenged, under Article 227 of the Constitution, the interim order dated 03.11.2025 of the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru (I.A.No.III in G & WC No.356/2024, an application under S.12 of the Guardian and Wards Act) which granted him interim custody/visitation of his about 5-year-old child only twice in a month — every 1st and 3rd Saturday from 10.00 a.m. to 06.00 p.m. — instead of the custody on all Saturdays and Sundays and half of all school vacations he sought. Holding that children tend to stay in the same atmosphere and surroundings and that occasional overnight stays away from the child's ordinary residence may cause tremendous stress and adversely affect the well-being of a child of five, the Court held the Family Court took the right decision on visitation rights and found no grounds for interference. The writ petition, along with I.A.No.1/2026 seeking interim custody from 27.02.2026 to 02.03.2026 for the petitioner's parents' 40th wedding anniversary at Kerala, was dismissed.

NC: 2026:KHC:10300 WP No. 34938 of 2025

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

WRIT PETITION NO. 34938 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

CHIRAG THOMAS, S/O THOMAS JOSE, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDENT OF:C332 SOWPARNIKA SANVI, PHASE 2, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU - 560066.

…PETITIONER

Digitally signed (BY SRI. SIJI MALAYIL, ADVOCATE) by AASEEFA PARVEEN AND: Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA TEENA CHANDRASHEKHARA, D/O KOTTANCHERRY CHANDRASHKHARA, AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT PROPERTY 5A, 1ST MAIN A CROSS, GREEN PARK LAYOUT, DODDABANASWADI, BENGALURU - 560043

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:10300 WP No. 34938 of 2025

HC-KAR

ALSO AT:MERCEDES BENZ RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INDIA, EMBASSY CREST, P1, PLOT NO 5, WHITE FIELD MAIN ROAD, NEAR SATHYA SAI BABA HOSPITAL, EPIP ZONE, HOODI, BENGALURU - 560 066. ALSO AT: G 1401, SUMADHURA EDEN GARDEN, 1ST MAIN ROAD, OFF SARIBABA ASHRAM ROAD, DODDABANAHALLI, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU - 560 067.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. ANUBHA SRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI THEREBY MODIFYING THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 03.11.2025 ON INTERIM APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 12 OF GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT NUMBERED AS I.A. NO.3 IN G AND WC NO.356/2024 BY VI ADDL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-A GRANTING INTERIM CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILD ON ALL SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS AND HALF OF SCHOOL VACATIONS OF CHILE DIN SUMMER, DUSSEHRA AND WINTER.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:10300 WP No. 34938 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri.G.Malayil learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms.Anubha Srivastava learned counsel for respondent.

Seeking the Court to issue writ of certiorari and to modify the order that is passed by the Court of VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on I.A.No.III in G & WC No.356/2024 dated 03.11.2025 this writ petition is filed.

Through I.A.No.III petitioner who is the father of the child by name Zyan Teena Chirag sought the interim custody of the child on all Saturdays and Sundays and half of all school vacation. Family Court through the impugned order granted interim custody/visitation rights of the child twice in a month i.e., on every 1^st and 3^rd Saturday from 10.00 a.m. to 06.00 p.m. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:10300 WP No. 34938 of 2025

HC-KAR

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent is maintaining illicit intimacy with another person and therefore, keeping the child in the custody of respondent is not desirable. The child has got lot of love and affection towards petitioner. However, respondent is asking the child to call her paramour as father. Learned counsel states that petitioner and his family members are intending to take good care of the child and petitioner is unable to spend much time with the child during the limited period granted by Family Court and hence, this writ petition is filed. Learned counsel also states that he filed I.A.No.1/2026 seeking this Court to grant interim custody of the child from 27.02.2026 to 02.03.2026 for attending 40^th wedding anniversary of his parents at Kerala. Learned counsel seeks to allow the said petition.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

submits that the child is aged around 5 years. Respondent has no relationship whatsoever with any other person. The person whom petitioner is pointing out is the colleague of

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:10300 WP No. 34938 of 2025

HC-KAR

respondent. Except association at office in official capacity, they have got no other relationship. Whenever petitioner is with the child, petitioner is keeping on telling the child that his mother is in contact with another person, which is atrocious. Learned counsel also states that petitioner has

no knowledge of the manner in which the child has to be taken care of and he has never taken care of the child at all till now. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner without informing respondent took the child to Kerala and respondent could get the custody of the child with much difficulty and that too with police assistance. Learned counsel also states that the child who is tender aged will not fell convenient without mother that too at a foreign place and hence, I.A.No.1/2026 is not maintainable. Learned counsel also states that respondent is complying the impugned order and petitioner is spending quality time with the child from morning to evening twice a month and thus, this writ petition is not maintainable.

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:10300 WP No. 34938 of 2025

HC-KAR

The child aged around 5 years is admittedly in the custody of respondent. Through the impugned order the child is staying with petitioner twice a month from 10.00 a.m. to 06.00 p.m. Petitioner seeks overnight custody of the child during such visits and also custody during vacation.

Unlike adults, children tend to stay in the same

atmosphere and surroundings. A child of 5 years on opening his eyes in the morning should not feel confused or surprised to see himself in a new place other than the place of his ordinary stay. If the stay is continuous at least for certain period like week or two, it is different. But occasionally staying at a different place overnight for a child of 5 years old, it may cause tremendous stress and adverse impact on his well being. Admittedly, as submitted by both the learned counsel, parties are interested in well being of the child. That being the case, parties should also see that child is comfortable. On going through the impugned order, this Court is of the view that Family Court

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:10300 WP No. 34938 of 2025

HC-KAR

taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case took a right decision in respect of the visitation rights. This Court therefore does not find any grounds for interference. Hence, writ petition is disposed of with the following:

ORDER

(i) Writ petition as well as I.A.No.1/2026 are dismissed.

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)

JUDGE

DS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9