- 1 - WP No. 38812 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.38812 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: MR. RAJIV ALPHONES S/O ALPHONES, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O NO.20, SHAMANNA LAYOUT, PATEL RAMAIAH ROAD, LOKESH TENT, LINGARAJUPURAM – 560 084. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. YADUNANDAN N.,ADVOCATE) AND: MRS. SUNITHA U D/O LATE UMAPATHY J, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O NO.8/18, 2ND CROSS, ITC COLONY, JEEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 005. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MARIO NOEL D. ROZARIO.,ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A DIRECTION TO MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2025 PASSED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE IN MC NO. 2384/2024 AS PER ANNX-D, IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 11.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 2 - WP No. 38812 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER This petition is filed seeking to modify the order dated 23.10.2025 passed in M.C.No.2384/2024on I.A.No.6 dated 13.08.2025, whereby visitation rights have been granted to the petitioner as per Annexure-D on the file of the V Additional Judge, Family Court at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Family Court’ for short). 2. The petitioner herein is the father and the respondent herein is the mother of the child. The brief facts of the case are that:- 3. The marriage between the petitioner/father and the respondent/mother was solemnized on 19.01.2017 at Ascension Church, Bengaluru, as per Christian rites and customs. Out of the wedlock, two daughters were born, namely Kum. Ivana Rajiv aged about 6 years and Kum. Talia Rajiv aged about 4 years. The respondent herein filed M.C.No.2384/2024 on 15.04.2024 seeking dissolution of - 3 - WP No. 38812 of 2025 marriage under Section 10(1)(iii)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1955. 4. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the petitioner filed I.A.No.6 dated 13.08.2025 under Section 151 of CPC seeking visitation rights to the minor daughters.The respondent did not file objections to the said application but filed a memo seeking to allow the application subject to certain conditions.The petitioner opposed the said conditions. 5. The respondent did not file objections to the said application but filed a memo stating that the application for visitation may be allowed subject to the following conditions: (a) change of wordings in the visitation petition, alleging that it contains the words “full custody”; (b) visitation to be permitted only on every Sunday between 12:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.; (c) visitation to be allowed only in a public place and the petitioner shall not take the children to his house; - 4 - WP No. 38812 of 2025 (d) once visitation is granted, the petitioner shall not visit the children near or outside their school; (e) the petitioner shall pick up and drop the children from the respondent’s house/outside the gate; (f) the petitioner shall participate in the children’s school requirements and both parties shall share Aadhaar details for school purposes; (g) the petitioner shall take care of the school fees of the children; and (h) the respondent shall clear her belongings from the petitioner’s house once visitation is granted. 6. 6. The petitioner opposed the aforesaid conditions and specifically contended that the application for visitation did not contain any reference to “full custody” and that he does not concede to the conditions imposed in the memo filed by the respondent. 7. The Family Court, after hearing both parties, by order dated 23.10.2025, allowed the application and - 5 - WP No. 38812 of 2025 granted visitation rights to the petitioner to meet the minor daughters every Sunday from 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. in a park near the respondent’s residence. The Family Court further directed that: (i) the visitation shall be without affecting the health and education of the children; (ii) the petitioner shall pick up and drop the children; (iii) the petitioner shall not give objectionable food which is harmful to the health of the children during visitation; and (iv) such arrangement shall continue till disposal of M.C.No.2384/2024. 8. The Family Court has also observed that insofar as the conditions relating to school access, participation in school activities, payment of school fees and other ancillary aspects are concerned, the respondent is at liberty to seek appropriate reliefs by filing separate applications, and that the present application was confined only to visitation rights. - 6 - WP No. 38812 of 2025 9. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the visitation granted is too restrictive both in terms of time and place and does not permit meaningful interaction between the father and the children.Further,the condition restricting visitation to a park is arbitrary and not supported by any material. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order and submits that the same has been passed keeping in mind the welfare of the children. 12. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials on record. 13. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 14. It is trite that in matters relating to custody and visitation of minor children, the paramount consideration is - 7 - WP No. 38812 of 2025 the welfare of the children. The Family Court, on consideration of the material available on record, has granted visitation rights to the petitioner-father. The grant of visitation recognizes the right of the father to have access to the children and to maintain emotional bonding. The restriction imposed with regard to time and place appears to be a temporary arrangement pending adjudication of the main matter. 15. In view of the above, this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, would not ordinarily interfere with such discretionary orders unless they suffer from perversity or patent illegality. In the present case, this Court does not find any such illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference. 16. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner is the natural father and the children are of tender age and having regard to the welfare of the minor children, the age of the children and the necessity of fostering a meaningful relationship between the petitioner- - 8 - WP No. 38812 of 2025 father and the children, this Court deems it appropriate to suitably consider duration of visitation on every Sunday between 10:30 a.m. to 01:30 p.m. in the park near the petitioner’s house without affecting their health and education as awarded by the Family Court. 17. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following:- ORDER (i) The writ petition is dismissed. (ii) The order dated 23.10.2025 passed on I.A.No.6 in M.C.No.2384/2024 by the V Additional Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is hereby confirmed. SD/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE bnv