Smt Haveena Attahally Vs Mr Anoop H a

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:7695 WP No. 37605 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO.37605 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. HAVEENA ATTAHALLY, W/O. ANOOP H. A., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/A, 93, FIRST FLOOR, 4TH A MAIN, 5TH CROSS, FURTHER EXTENSION, OF MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 086.

¶9

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

(BY SRI. GOVINDARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.NEHRU, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

MR. ANOOP H. A. S/O.H.K.APPAJIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/ AT NO.459,1ST CROSS, 4TH MAIN, MARUTHI TEMPLE ROAD,

¶13

2 -

¶14

NC: 2026:KHC:7695 WP No. 37605 of 2025

HC-KAR

KUVEMPU NAGAR,

MYSURU - 560 086.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. RADHIKA JAGADESSH, ADVOCATE FOR

¶20

SRI. SHIVAKUMAR M. MULAGE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.11.2025, ON I.A NO.5, PASSED BY THE LEARNED V ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU IN G AND W C NO.273/2024 AT ANNEXURE-A, DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO SUBJECT THE MINOR DAUGHTERS TO UNDERGO REGULAR PSYCHIATRIC COUNSELLING SESSIONS THROUGH A COUNSELLOR OF NIMHANS, BENGALURU AND THE COUNSELLOR IS DIRECTED TO FILE REPORT IN THIS REGARD AND INTIMATE THE SAME TO THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT OF NIMHANS AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/S AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER BY CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC:7695 WP No. 37605 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Heard Sri.Govindraj who represents Sri.P.Nehru learned counsel on record for the petitioner as well as Ms.Radhika Jagadish who represents Sri.Shivkumar M Mulage learned counsel on record for the respondent.

¶29

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Court of V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on I.A.No.V in G&WC No.273/2024 dated 13.11.2025, this writ petition is filed.

¶30

The contesting parties are wife and husband, the writ petitioner being wife and the respondent husband.

¶31

Respondent/husband filed a petition i.e., I.A.No.V seeking the Court to give directions for subjecting the minor children to regular psychiatric counselling sessions through a counsellor. Family Court through the impugned order gave the relief sought for. Through the order, the Court directed the children to undergo regular

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:7695 WP No. 37605 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

psychiatric counselling sessions through a counsellor of NIMHANS, Bengaluru. Thus as per the impugned order, the minor daughters of the parties by name Tashivi Anoop Gowda aged around 12 years and Shanvi Anoop Gowda aged around 10 years are required to undergo regular psychiatric counselling.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife submits

¶37

that children are very good in their studies and mentally strong. There are no complaints whatsoever from anyone including the school authorities regarding their behaviour or mental health. Children are under the custody of petitioner. Only to harass petitioner/ mother, respondent/father filed an application for getting the children counselled through a psychiatrist. The Family Court without taking into consideration the fact that respondent/father filed an application only to bring petitioner/mother and the children to his terms, allowed the application and thereby causing enormous trouble and hardship to petitioner/ mother and the children. Learned

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:7695 WP No. 37605 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

counsel thereby seeks to allow the writ petition and dismiss the application filed by respondent/husband.

¶42

Per contra, learned counsel who represents respondent submits that due to separation of father and mother, children are under tremendous stress and anxiety. Only a therapist can help the children to come out of such anxiety and stress. The wish of respondent/father is only to see the welfare of the children and such welfare is not found as they are in the custody of their mother. Learned counsel also states that children refused to join respondent/husband though they have lot of love and affection towards him, which itself goes to show that their behaviour is not normal. Thus, the order rendered by the Family Court is valid and hence, the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶43

In the affidavit given by respondent/father which formed basis for the Court to pass the impugned order, he narrated that the custody of the children was handed over to him for three days i.e., from 23.05.2015 to

¶44

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:7695 WP No. 37605 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

25.05.2015 and during that period he observed that children appears to have been tutored by their mother not to co-operate with him. He further narrated that the children were found very disturbed and were constantly glued to their phones awaiting instructions from their mother. Children complained that they don't want to eat normal idli/dosa at a restaurant and they want to eat nonveg food. Children refused to eat food cooked by his mother especially mutton which used to be their favourite. Children stayed aloof from the rest of the family and wanted to speak to their mother all time and once they settled, their behaviour improved and they were happy. They were confused and disoriented. They seemed to be very engaged in material things rather than actually bonding with him and his extended family.

¶47

In the impugned order, the Family Court has not mentioned any behavioural changes or significant aspects which prompted it to pass an order directing the children to undergo psychiatric counselling. Family Court

¶48

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:7695 WP No. 37605 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

made a clear mention that on 11.04.2025 it interacted

¶51

with the minor children and they stated that they don't want to go to their father during summer vacation of the year 2025. It is also noted that elder daughter also stated that though she is very much interested to go for international trip to USA arranged by her School and her mother is ready to afford a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the said trip her father refused to affix the signature to obtain passport. Family Court also made a mention that mother was directed to hand over the custody of the children to the father from 04.05.2025 to 31.05.2025, but she failed to comply the order and thereafter a contempt petition was filed before the High Court and later she handed over the children for three days during summer vacation. All these facts clearly goes to show that the children are used as tools by wife and husband to blame each other and to settle their scores. Though mother and father projects that they have got great concern towards their children, each of them appears to have their own fears in handing over

¶52

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:7695 WP No. 37605 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

the children to the other. This Court does not find any such pertinent incidents where the mentality or the behaviour of children was found abnormal even by the father. One cannot find fault with the children seeking instructions from their mother and wanting to talk to their mother while they were in the custody of the father. The children aged 10 and 12 years will normally wish to have food of their choice and sometimes they refuse to take the food served to them. That does not mean that their mindset is wrong or their behaviour is abnormal. Noninclination to spend time with the father by the children does not mean that they are under stress and anxiety and that their behavioural changes are required to be addressed. Furthermore, directing the children for psychiatric counselling, where such counselling is not required, will definitely subject the children to lot of mental trauma. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Family Court erred in directing the children to undergo

¶55

9 -

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:7695 WP No. 37605 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

psychiatric counselling. Thus, the petition is disposed of with the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(i) The order that is rendered by the Court of V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore on I.A.No.V in G&WC No.273/2024 dated 13.11.2025 is set aside.

¶61

(ii) Consequently, the said Interlocutory Application is dismissed.

¶62

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶63

DS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Smt Haveena Attahally v. Mr Anoop H a

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Haveena Attahally v. Mr Anoop H a

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.D.B. Punithkumar Vs Smt.U.N. Swathi

Smt Shruthi v Vs Sri B N Praveen

Smt R Archana Vs M G Vijaya Kumar

Mr.Uppara Gummala Ravindra Kumar Vs Mr.Soumya Kakhandki

Sri. a. Palanivel, Vs Smt. Pachamma

Mrs. Shalini D.S. Vs Mr. Theertha