- 1 - WP No. 26277 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5746 of 2026 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.26277 OF 2025 (GM-FC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.5746 OF 2026 (GM-FC) IN WP No.26277/2025 BETWEEN: SMT. R. SUJATHA @ SARASWATHI, D/O SRI.RAMACHANDRAN, AGE 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.G01, MANAR MERLYN APARTMENT, SUNSHINE COLONY, 14TH MAIN,12TH 'A' CROSS, BTM 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 076. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.R.A DEVANAND, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. MAHESH D. YATNALLI S/O SRI. DEVENDRAPPA, AGED 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.202, SHIVA RESIDENCY, 24TH MAIN END, VINAYAKA NAGAR ROAD, J.P. NAGAR 5TH PHASE, PUTTENAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 078. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GNANESH N.I., ADVOCATE FOR MISS. VIJETHA R NAIK.,ADVOCATE) - 2 - WP No. 26277 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5746 of 2026 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTIONS BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.06.2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE IIIRD ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE, IN EX.PET NO.38/2024, AND WHICH ORDER IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION IN ENTIRETY. IN WP NO.5746/2026 BETWEEN: SMT. R. SUJATHA @ SARASWATHI D/O SRI.RAMACHANDRAN, AGE 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.G01, SUNSHINE COLONY, 14TH MAIN, MANAR MERLYN APARTMENT, 12TH 'A' CROSS, BTM 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 076., ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.A DEVANAND.,ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. MAHESH D. YATNALLI S/O SRI. DEVENDRAPPA, AGED 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.202, SHIVA RESIDENCY, 24TH MAIN END, VINAYAKA NAGAR ROAD, J.P. NAGAR 5TH PHASE, PUTTENAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 078., ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GNANESH N.I, ADVOCATE FOR MISS.VIJETHA R. NAIK.,ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER ON IA NO.6 DTD. 03.12.2025 PASSED BY THE IIIRD ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE IN EXECUTION PETITION NO. 38/2024 AND WHICH ORDER IS PRODUCED AS ANNX-H1 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION IN ENTIRETY. - 3 - WP No. 26277 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5746 of 2026 THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 16.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER The W.P.No.26277/2025 is filed by the petitioner– mother, who is the judgment debtor in Execution Petition No.38/2024, has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 22.06.2024 passed by the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru (‘the Family Court’ for short). The writ petition in W.P.No.5746/2026 is also filed by the very same petitioner–mother, challenging the subsequent order dated 03.12.2025 passed in the same execution proceedings. By the said order, the Executing Court directed attachment of her salary to the extent of Rs.12,24,000/- by withholding one-third of her salary through her employer. The brief facts leading to the filing of these petitions are that:- - 4 - WP No. 26277 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5746 of 2026 2. The petitioner and respondent were wife and husband and their marital relationship came to an end by virtue of a decree of divorce dated 25.01.2022 passed in M.C.No.418/2014. Out of this wedlock, a male child namely Master Kautik was born. Even after dissolution of marriage, disputes relating to maintenance, custody and visitation rights continued between the parties. 3. In proceedings under Crl.Misc.No.252/2014, the Family Court granted maintenance under various heads from January 2017 to December 2023 and thereafter fixed monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- from January 2024 till completion of the child’s Bachelor’s degree, along with Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent preferred R.P.F.C.No.104/2022 before this Court. 4. During the pendency of the said revision petition, both parties entered into a compromise on 30.06.2022. Under the compromise, custody of the child was retained with the mother, while the father was granted weekend visitation rights from Saturday 11.00 - 5 - WP No. 26277 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5746 of 2026 a.m. to Sunday 6.00 p.m., and further entitled to 75% custody during summer, Dasara and Christmas vacations. The respondent also undertook to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance and 50% of educational expenses. 5. The compromise petition further discloses that both parties agreed to abide by the terms and were given liberty to enforce the same in accordance with law. The compromise thus has the force of a decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC and governs the rights of the parties. 6. It is the case of the petitioner/mother that the respondent initially complied with the compromise terms, but subsequently initiated proceedings including W.P.H.C.No.34/2023, which came to be disposed of on 23.05.2023 by the Division bench of this Court, directing handing over of the remaining 12 days (23.05.2023 to 04.06.2023)’ custody out of 51 days to the respondent herein/father, taking into consideration the medical condition of the child. - 6 - WP No. 26277 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5746 of 2026 7. Thereafter, the respondent initiated Execution Petition No.38/2024 alleging violation of the compromise decree and sought enforcement by way of attachment of properties and other coercive measures. The petitioner entered appearance and contested the proceedings and filed IA No.3 on 22.06.202 under sections 55 r/w. 151 of the CPC for the arrest of the petitioner/father in civil prison for disobedience of the order. 8. During the course of execution proceedings, the Executing Court without conducting enquiry, passed the order dated 22.06.2024 and directed petitioner for compliance of custody arrangement by imposing cost of Rs.3,000/- per default, with a further direction that failure to pay would result in attachment of property. The proceedings continued thereafter on several dates. The parties also filed a joint memo dated 01.07.2024 and custody of the child was handed over to the respondent herein during the period from 01.08.2024 to 17.08.2024 and again from 24.10.2024 to 21.12.2024 pursuant to interim arrangements. - 7 - WP No. 26277 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5746 of 2026 9. Subsequently, the Executing Court in WP 5746/2026, issued a show cause notice on 28.07.2025 and upon consideration of the material on record, passed the impugned order dated 03.12.2025 issued an order of attachment of salary of the petitioner from her employer as per the order dated 22.06.2024. Further, registry had directed the employer of the petitioner firm to withhold the salary of Rs. 12,24,000/-, on a monthly instalment of 1/3rd of her salary and remit the same to the Court. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.26277/2025 would contend that the issuance of the show-cause notice by the Family Court is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, and is therefore liable to be set aside; inasmuch as, in Execution Petition No.38/2024, the respondent sought execution against the petitioner/JDR by way of (i) attachment and sale of movables, (ii) attachment and sale of immovables, and (iii) arrest and detention in civil prison, coupled with an affidavit alleging contempt on the ground of deprivation of 51 days’ custody of the child during the summer vacation - 8 - WP No. 26277 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5746 of 2026 of 2022–2023, which allegation was specifically denied by the petitioner by filing objections, thereby necessitating a proper enquiry with recording of evidence by the Family Court to determine whether any act of contempt had in fact been committed. However, without conducting such enquiry, the Family Court proceeded to issue the impugned show-cause notice proposing attachment of salary and, if necessary, immovable property, thereby prematurely assuming jurisdiction and effectively presuming contempt, which is impermissible in law and constitutes a grave illegality, particularly when proceedings pursuant to a show-cause notice are punitive in nature and can culminate only in imprisonment, detention, fine or costs upon due process being followed, and not in coercive recovery measures such as attachment of salary or property, rendering the impugned action illegal and liable to be interfered with. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend in W.P.5746/2026 that the order dated 22.06.2024 has been passed without conducting any - 9 - WP No. 26277 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5746 of 2026 enquiry into the alleged disobedience of the compromise decree and that the imposition of cost is arbitrary. It is further contended that the subsequent order dated 03.12.2025 directing attachment of salary is wholly mechanical and without any basis, as there is no determination of the number of defaults or calculation leading to the figure of Rs.12,24,000/-. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the compromise decree is binding on both parties and petitioner has failed to adhere to the terms relating to custody and visitation. It is submitted that the Executing Court, after affording sufficient opportunity and considering the conduct of the parties, has rightly exercised its jurisdiction to enforce the decree and no interference is called for. 13. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials on record. 14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, this Court is of - 10 - WP No. 26277 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5746 of 2026 the view that the compromise petition dated 30.06.2022 forms the foundation of the rights and obligations of the parties. The said compromise, having been accepted by this Court, has attained finality and is executable as a decree. 15. During the course of proceedings, this Court also interacted with the minor child in chamber, in order to ascertain his inclination and overall welfare in the context of the custody and visitation arrangement contemplated under the compromise decree. Upon such interaction, it was observed that the child did not express any reluctance or discomfort in accompanying the respondent–father and appeared amenable to spending time with him in terms of the agreed schedule. This interaction, though not determinative by itself, lends support to the view that the enforcement of the visitation and custody terms as directed by the Executing Court does not go contrary to the welfare of the child. 16. The terms of the compromise clearly provide for structured visitation and substantial custody rights in - 11 - WP No. 26277 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5746 of 2026 favour of the respondent, including 75% custody during vacations. The execution proceedings initiated by the respondent are for enforcement of these rights. 17. The contention of the petitioner that the order dated 22.06.2024 has been passed without conducting an enquiry into the alleged disobedience cannot be accepted in the manner urged. The records disclose that the petitioner had entered appearance in the execution proceedings and had contested the matter. The Executing Court has heard both parties on multiple occasions and has passed orders in the course of such proceedings. Whether the enquiry so conducted is adequate or whether further evidence was required are essentially matters relating to appreciation of factual aspects within the domain of the Executing Court, and do not, by themselves, warrant interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, unless it is shown that there is a complete absence of jurisdiction or a patent procedural illegality. - 12 - WP No. 26277 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5746 of 2026 18. The direction issued by the Executing Court requiring compliance with the custody and visitation arrangement, coupled with imposition of costs for alleged non-compliance, is intended to secure adherence to the terms of the compromise decree. It cannot be said, in the facts of the present case, that the Executing Court lacked jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions for enforcement of the decree. However, this Court has not examined the correctness or legality of the quantification of such costs or the manner in which they have been computed, and all such issues are left open to be agitated by the petitioner before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. 19. Insofar as the subsequent proceedings culminating in the order dated 03.12.2025 are concerned, the material on record indicates that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the proceedings were continued thereafter. The petitioner had opportunity to place her objections before the Executing Court. The question as to the extent of compliance with the decree and the consequences of alleged non-compliance are - 13 - WP No. 26277 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5746 of 2026 matters which fall for consideration within the execution proceedings themselves. 20. The Executing Court is vested with the authority to take steps in accordance with law for enforcement of a decree. The nature and mode of such enforcement are governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the present proceedings, this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, does not propose to examine the correctness of the quantification, the calculation of any amount, or the precise mode of enforcement adopted, in the absence of a clear case of lack of jurisdiction or manifest illegality. It is, however, open to the petitioner to avail such remedies as are available in law in respect of the said aspects before the Executing Court or any other appropriate forum. However, it is made clear that before proceeding with recovery, the Executing Court shall ensure that the quantification of any amount is based on proper calculation and is in accordance with law. 21. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner has been participating in the execution proceedings and has - 14 - WP No. 26277 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5746 of 2026 raised her objections therein. The issues relating to compliance, alleged defaults, and the consequential directions issued by the Executing Court are all matters which can appropriately be agitated before the Executing Court itself in accordance with law. The mere initiation of coercive steps would not, by itself, justify interference at this stage in the absence of jurisdictional error. 22. The jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory in nature and is intended to ensure that courts and tribunals act within the bounds of their authority. It is not an appellate jurisdiction to re-appreciate facts or to substitute the view of this Court for that of the subordinate court. In the present case, no ground is made out to demonstrate that the impugned orders suffer from patent lack of jurisdiction or such perversity as would warrant interference. 23. In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following:- - 15 - WP No. 26277 of 2025 C/W WP No. 5746 of 2026 ORDER The W.P.No.26277/2025 and W.P.No.5746/2026 are dismissed. No order as to costs. SD/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE bnv