- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8408/2024 (GW) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8418/2024(GW) MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO.4/2025 (GW) MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO.6/2025 (GW) IN MFA NO.8408/2024 BETWEEN: 1. MR. VISHNU KUMAR AGARWAL S/O LATE HAR PRASAD AGARWAL AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 2. MRS.RASHMI AGARWAL W/O VISHNU KUMAR AGARWAL AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT D NO.L V 38 ZUARI GARDEN CITY KRS ROAD, HULIKERE VILLAGE SR PATNA TALUK, MANDYA KARNATAKA – 571 607 … APPELLANTS (BY SRI.KIRTHIMAN SINGH, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI.SUSHANT KUMAR THAKUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.HITESH GOWDA B J, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS.TRIPTI AGARWAL W/O APOORVA PREM VERMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 2. MR APOORVA PREM VERMA Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 S/O PREM KUMAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.3076/2 GOKULAM, 1ST STAGE MYSORE CITY, MYSORE – 570 002 ALSO R/AT NO.2063, PRESTIGE MISTY WATER ANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD KEMPAPURA, HEBBAL BANGALORE - 560024 … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.RAJITHA T O, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND R2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 47(A) OF GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.11.2024 PASSED IN G AND WC.NO.4/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SRIRANGAPATNA, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTIONS 9, 12 AND 25 OF THE GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT 1890 R/W SECTION 6 OF THE HINDU MINORITY GUARDIANSHIP ACT. IN MFA NO. 8418/2024 BETWEEN: 1. MS.IPSITA AGARWAL D/O VISHNU KUMAR AGARWAL AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 2. MR.VISHNU KUMAR AGARWAL S/O LATE HAR PRASAD AGARWAL AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS 3. MRS RASHMI AGARWAL W/O VISHNU KUMAR AGARWAL AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT D NO. L V 38 ZUARI GARDEN CITY KRS ROAD, HULIKERE VILLAGE SR PATNA TALUK, MANDYA KARNATAKA – 571 607 … APPELLANTS (BY SRI.KIRTHIMAN SINGH, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 SRI.SUSHANT KUMAR THAKUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.HITESH GOWDA B J, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS.TRIPTI AGARWAL W/O APOORVA PREM VERMA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 2. MR APOORVA PREM VERMA S/O PREM KUMAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.3076/2 GOKULAM, 1ST STAGE MYSORE CITY, MYSORE – 570 002 ALSO R/AT NO.2063, PRESTIGE MISTY WATER ANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD KEMPAPURA, HEBBAL BANGALORE – 560 024 … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.RAJITHA T O, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND R2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 47 OF GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT, PRAYING TO JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.11.2024 PASSED ON G AND WC NO.9/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, COURT, SRIRANGAPATNA, DISMISSING THE PETITION. IN MFA.CROB NO.4/2025 BETWEEN: 1. MRS.TRIPTI AGARWAL W/O APOORVA PREM VERMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 2. MR.APOORVA PREM VERMA S/O PREM KUMAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.1234 PRESTIGE MISTY WATERS ANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 KEMPAPURA HEBBAL BANGALORE – 560 024 … CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SMT.RAJITHA T O, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MS.IPSITA AGARWAL D/O MR.VISHNU KUMAR AGARWAL AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 2. MR.VISHNU KUMAR AGARWAL S/O LATE HAR PRASAD AGARWAL AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 3. MRS.RASHMI AGARWAL W/O VISHNU KUMAR AGARWAL ALL ARE R/AT D NO.LV 38 ZUARI GARDEN CITY KRS ROAD, HULIKERE VILLAGE S R PATNA TALUK MANDYA, KARNATAKA – 571607 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.KIRTHIMAN SINGH, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI.SUSHANT KUMAR THAKUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.HITESH GOWDA B J, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) M.F.A.CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLI RULE 22 OF THE CPC READ WITH SECTION U/S.47(A) OF GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.11.2024 PASSED ON G AND WC NO.9/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, COURT, SRIRANGAPATNA, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT. IN MFA.CROB NO. 6/2025 BETWEEN: 1. MRS.TRIPTI AGARWAL W/O APOORVA PREM VERMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 2. MR.APOORVA PREM VERMA S/O PREM KUMAR - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS BOTH ARE PRESENTLY R/AT NO.1234 PRESTIGE MISTY WATERS ANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD KEMPAPURA HEBBAL BANGALORE – 560 024 … CROSS OBJECTORS (BY SMT.RAJITHA T O, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR.VISHNU KUMAR AGARWAL S/O LATE HAR PRASAD AGARWAL AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT D.NO. LV 38, ZUARI GARDEN CITY KRS ROAD, HULIKERE VILLAGE S R PATNA TALUK, MANDYA KARNATAKA – 571 607 2. MRS. RASHMI AGARWAL W/O VISHNU KUMAR AGARWAL BOTH ARE RESIDING AT D.NO. LV 38, ZUARI GARDEN CITY, KRS ROAD, HULIKERE VILLAGE, SR PATNA TALUK, MANDYA KARNATAKA - 571 607 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.KIRTHIMAN SINGH, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI.SUSHANT KUMAR THAKUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.HITESH GOWDA B J, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) M.F.A. CROB. IS FILED ORDER XLI RULE 22 READ WITH SEC.151 OF CPC, READ WITH SECTION 47(A) OF GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE CROSS OBJECTIONS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.11.2024 PASSED IN G AND WC NO.4/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SRIRANGAPATNA, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTIONS 9, 12 AND 25 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1890 R/W SEC.6 OF THE HINDU MINORITY GUARDIANSHIP ACT. THSESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS AND MFA CROSS OBJECTIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) These appeals and cross objections arise out of the common judgment and order passed by the Prl. Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatna in G & WC No.4/2020 c/w G & WC No.9/2020. 2. The particulars relating to the appeals, cross objections and connected G & WC cases are as follows: Sl. No. Appellants MFA & CROB No. Trial Court Case No. 1. Vishnu Kumar Agarwal & Rashmi Agarwal (Grandparents of the Ward) 8408/2024 G & WC 4/2020 2. Tripti Agarwal & Apoorva Prem Verma (Parents of the Ward) CROB 6/2025 (MFA 8408/ 2024) G &WC 4/2020 3. Ipsita Agarwal, Vishnu Kumar Agarwal & Rashmi Agarwal (Maternal Aunt & Grandparents of the Ward) 8418/2024 G&WC 9/2020 4. Tripti Agarwal & Apoorva Prem Verma (Parents of the Ward) CROB 4/2025 (MFA 8418/ 2024) G&WC 9/2020 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 3. Appellant Nos.1 and 2 in MFA No.8408/2024 are the father and mother of respondent No.1/Tripti. Respondent No.2/Apoorva Prem Verma is husband of Tripti. The first appellant/Ipsita in MFA No.8418/2024 is the sister of respondent No.1/Tripti. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 in the said case are the parents of appellant No.1/Ipsita and first respondent/Tripti. Second respondent therein is the husband of first respondent. 4. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The marriage of respondent Nos.1 and 2 was solemnized on 13.04.2010 at Mumbai. The couple begot a son by name Riaan on 19.05.2015 in Singapore. The couple Tripti along with Apoorva filed G & WC No.4/2020 against her parents under Sections 9, 12 and 25 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (‘G & WC Act’ for short) and Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (‘HMG Act’ for short) seeking custody of Riaan. Whereas the parents and younger sister of Tripti filed G & WC No.9/2020 against Tripti and her husband under Section 9 of G & WC Act seeking declaration that they are fit and proper persons to be the guardians of Riaan and to give them permanent and joint custody of Riaan. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 5. For the purpose of clarity, the parties are hereafter referred to according to their names. 6. Some of the admitted facts are as follows: (a) That Vishnu Kumar Agarwal and Rashmi Agarwal at the time of filing the petition in 2020 were aged 67 years and 63 years, Ipsita/younger daughter of the said couple was aged 29 years and the minor child was aged 5 years. Vishnu Kumar is a holder of B. Tech degree in Chemical Engineering, IIT, Kanpur and he had worked in National Dairy Development Board prior to his retirement. His wife Rashmi Agarwal is a holder of MA in Economics from Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi and served for 20 years as Manager in Oriental Bank of Commerce. Ipsita/younger daughter of the said couple is a Bachelor of Engineering in Systems Engineering from Loughborough University, U.K. Vishnu Kumar is native of Bhopal and his wife Rashmi is native of Delhi. After their marriage, for the purpose of employment both of them lived in several cities in India and subsequently they moved to Pune. (b) Tripti and Apoorva Verma were employed in Singapore and the child was born in Singapore. When they were in Singapore, there was some marital discord between - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 Tripti and her husband. During that period Tripti left Riaan in the custody of her parents. Thereafter disputes arose between the parties. Therefore, Tripti and her husband filed G & WC 4/2020 against her parents seeking custody of their minor child. Whereas, the sister and parents of Tripti filed G & WC 9/2020 against Tripti and her husband to declare themselves as permanent guardians of Riaan. 7. The contentions of the grandparents and aunt in both the cases are as follows: That Apoorva/the father of the child had no financial discipline and was entrapped in loans. For misappropriation, he was terminated from service. Tripti had difficult situations with her spouse. Therefore, in 2017 she entrusted the child to grandparents executing Ex.R1. Thereafter she abandoned the child, did not visit the child and she was concentrating only on her career. In 2020 she started forcing her parents to stay with her along with the child. The child had suffered febrile fits in his infant stage and his psychological health condition was aggravated because of the conduct of Tripti. Apoorva never visited the child. As the child stayed for more than 7 years with grandparents and aunt, he has developed a bond with - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 them. Shifting him from the custody of grandparents and aunt is contrary to his welfare. Moreover, parents of the child have no employment and income to take care of the child. Therefore, the grandparents and aunt be appointed as guardians of the child and the petition of the parents for custody shall be rejected. 8. Contentions of Tripti and Apoorva/the parents of the child: Initially father was working in Singapore, mother had joined him there and child was born there. During 2017, couple developed some disharmony. In addition to that, due to recession in employment, they faced some financial difficulty, forcing respondent/mother to find a job. Under the circumstances, she had to leave the child with her parents. Letter/Ex.R1 for handing over the custody of the child was written by Tripti at the instance of her father in those difficult situations. Thereafter she shifted from Singapore to Bengaluru upon finding an employment. Despite Tripti setting up house at Bengaluru and asking her parents to shift to her house along with the child, they were adamant. They did not give custody of the child to the mother. She visited Pune several times. Due - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 to her employment she found it difficult to stay back in Pune. In the meanwhile the grandparents and aunt without any information to parents of the child, shifted to Srirangapatna. When parents went to Srirangapatna, grandparents did not allow the father to meet the child. For few days Tripti stayed in her parents’ house with the child at Srirangapatna. Ultimately she was driven out from their house. 9. As the grandparents and aunt were not ready to handover the child, parents filed the complaint. Ultimately W.P(HC) No.35/2020 was filed before this Court. On 23.06.2020 the said writ petition was disposed of with the observation that parents should take appropriate remedy. Therefore, parents were forced to file G & WC No.4/2020. The allegation that the child had no bond with the parents and mental health of the child was affected was denied. Grandparents and Ipsita have exposed the child to unwanted medication even without the knowledge and consent of the parents. The acts of the grandparents and aunt of the child are detrimental to the welfare of the child. Hence they sought dismissal of G & WC No.9/2020 filed by the grandparents and aunt. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 10. The Trial Court consolidated both cases and recorded common evidence. In support of their case, the parents got examined themselves as PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to P79 were marked. The petitioners in G & WC No.9/2020 were examined as RWs.1 to 3. Further on their side, RWs.4 to 7 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.40 were marked. 11. The Trial Court on hearing the parties by the impugned judgment and order allowed G & WC No.4/2020 filed by the parents for custody of the child and dismissed G & WC No.9/2020 filed by grandparents and aunt of the child to appoint them as guardian of the minor child. Despite dismissing G & WC No.9/2020, the Trial Court gave liberty to grandparents and aunt to visit the child twice a week without disturbing the educational activities of the child and to make video calls everyday. 12. Challenging dismissal of their petition and allowing the petition of the parents, grandparents and aunt have preferred the above MFAs. Questioning the visitation rights granted to the grandparents, parents of the child have preferred the above cross objections in both the appeals. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 Submissions of Sri Kirthiman Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellants/grandparents: 13. The evidence of the parties on record shows that the parents without caring for the child had abandoned the child for about 3 years and only thereafter they have come claiming custody of the child. The conduct of the parents had caused trauma to the child leading to adverse impact on the psychological development of the child. Therefore, granting custody of the child to the parents is detrimental to the welfare of the child. The Trial Court without proper appreciation of the evidence has passed the impugned judgment. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Other grounds stated in appeal memo are reiterated. 14. In support of his submissions, he relies on the following judgments: i) Lahari Sakhamuri vs. Sobhan Kodali1 ii) Navin Singh vs. Jyoti Parashar & anr2 iii) Nirmal vs. Kulwant Singh & ors3 iv) Nil Ratan Kundu and anr vs. Abhijit Kundu4 1 (2019)7 SCC 311 2 2004 SCC Online All 774 3 2024 SCC Online SC 758 4 (2008)9 SCC 413 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 Submissions of Smt.Rajitha T.O, learned counsel for cross objectors/parents: 15. The evidence on record clearly shows that mother had left the child just seeking support of the parents when she was facing difficult situations. But the child was neither abandoned nor surrendered. That was only a temporary arrangement. The parents are the natural guardians and grandparents and aunt have no legal right to seek their appointment as guardians of the child or retain the custody of the child to the deprivation of the parents. The conduct of the aunt and grandparents is detrimental to the interest of the child. That is very much evident from the fact that they have administered psychotropic drugs to child even without the knowledge and consent of the parents. The material on record clearly shows that the grandparents and aunt themselves are selfish and behave contrary to the norms of conduct of an ordinary prudent person. The Trial Court on judicious appreciation of the evidence and supplying sustainable reasons has rejected the claim of the grandparents and allowed the petition of the parents. However, the course of events shows that even visitation rights granted to the grandparents has - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 traumatized the child. During visitation also, they have not conducted properly. Therefore order of granting visitation rights to the grandparents be set aside. 16. In support of her submissions she relies on the following judgments: i. Nirali Mehta Vs Surendrakumar Surana and Another5. ii. P Manjunath Vs P Jagadish6 iii. Gohar Begum Vs Suggi Alias Nazma Begum and Others7. 17. On hearing the submissions of both side and on examination of material on record, the question that arises for consideration of the Court is “whether the impugned judgment and order is sustainable in law ?” Analysis 18. It is an unfortunate case where the parents and sister have embroiled in a tough fight against their daughter/sister and son-in-law/brother-in-law, claiming preferential right over the child of their own daughter/sister. There is no dispute that Vishnu Kumar Agarwal and Rashmi 5 AIR 2013 Bom 123 6 AIR 2020 (NOC) 828 (KAR) 7 AIR 1960 SC 93 - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 Agarwal are the parents of Tripti and Ipsita and Apoorva Prem Verma is the husband of Tripti. Tripti and Apoorva Verma were married on 13.04.2010 and when they were residing in Singapore, Riaan was born on 19.05.2015. In 2017, he was diagnosed with Febrile Fits. Unfortunately, some differences cropped up amongst Tripti and Apoorva Prem Verma during 2017. They also suffered employment crisis during the same time. In April 2017, Tripti left the child with her parents in Pune. In 2020, Tripti and Apoorva approached the Trial Court in G & WC 4/2020 seeking custody of the child alleging that grandparents are separating the child from her and not allowing her to take back her child. Apart from opposing the said petition, grandparents and aunt filed G & WC No.9/2020 against Tripti and Apoorva to appoint themselves as guardians of Riaan and for permanent custody of the child. 19. Grandparents and aunt claimed to be appointed as guardians of minor child Riaan on the following grounds: i) The parents had abandoned Riaan ; ii) Health condition of the child - Since 7 years the child is in the custody of grandparents, therefore, child has developed bond with them and is - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 comfortable only with them. The conduct of the parents towards the child is traumatic leading to mental health complications, therefore, handing over custody to the parents is detrimental to the interest of the child. iii) Character of Apoorva is not conducive for the welfare of the child; iv) Comparative financial condition of Tripti and Apoorva is not conducive to bring up the child in the required manner. Reg. abandonment of child: 20. Learned counsel for the grandparents fairly conceded that as per Section 6 of the HMG Act, 1956, the parents are the natural guardians. Therefore, during the lifetime of parents there is no legal right for grandparents or aunt over the child. His whole argument was centered around the term ‘welfare of the child’ contemplated in Section 7 of G & WC Act. The substance of the judgments relied on by him is that in case of appointment of guardian, the only consideration that weighs for the Court is, under whose custody or guardianship welfare of the child is better served. In such - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 cases, the Court plays the role of Parens patriae. Thus it becomes clear that the parents of the child are his legal guardians. Therefore, grandparents and aunt could succeed in seeking their appointment as child’s guardian only if they establish that the welfare of the child suffers, if he is given to the custody of the parents and parents are in any way acting detrimental to the interest of the child. 21. It was fairly conceded that Section 7 of G & WC Act clearly states that while appointing/declaring a person as guardian of the child, Court shall be satisfied that such appointment is for the welfare of the minor child. Admittedly, when Riaan was born, Tripti and Apoorva were working in Singapore. Even according to grandparents and aunt, after birth of the child, some marital differences cropped up between Tripti and Apoorva and in 2017 they also faced employment crisis. While struggling to set right her matrimonial relationship and settle in her career in 2017, Tripti under the letter/Ex.R1 dated 23.04.2017 entrusted the child to her parents who were staying in Pune and left to Singapore. Based on Ex.R1, the grandparents and aunt claim that Tripti abandoned the child or surrendered the child. Whereas Tripti and Apoorva disputed the - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 same and claimed that temporary custody of the child was given to the parents. Tripti contends that Ex.R1 was given at the instance of her father. Ex.R1 reads as follows: “I Tripti Agarwal, Indian Passport Number Z2677651, hereby confirm that I have left my son, Riaan Verma, Indian Passport Number M7258152, in the custody of my parents, Vishnu Kumar Agarwal and Rashmi Agarwal. My son should continue to be in the custody of my parents till my written further instruction.” (Emphasis supplied) 22. Even assuming that Tripti issued Ex.R1 voluntarily, nothing can be inferred from the said document to arrive at a conclusion that under the said document there was abandonment/surrender, much less, irrevocable surrender of child by her in favour of her parents or sister. Tripti specifically states that the child should continue in the custody of her parents till her further instruction. Absolutely there is nothing to create any right even to her parents. Therefore the question of sister claiming appointment as guardian and custody of the child is remote. The term ‘instruction’ in Ex.R1 itself shows that it was authoritative on the part of mother of the child. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 23. The other contention was that after executing Ex.R1, parents more particularly mother did not visit the child or care for the child. Admittedly, at that point of time, there were some misunderstandings between the parents of the child in their matrimonial life. Mother had to leave for India to search for a job. Admittedly the child had suffered infant febrile fits. RW.1 at page 27 of his cross-examination states that when the child was in Pune, Tripti was in Bangalore and for sometime she was also in Singapore. In such situation a working woman seeking the support of her parents to tend her minor child is common in Indian Society. 24. Further RWs.1 to 3 in their chief-examination itself have admitted that Tripti was visiting the child periodically during the said period in Pune and after they shifting to Srirangapatna, to join the child she applied three months sabbatical leave and moved to Mysore. 25. In para 17 of RW.1’s chief-examination, he states as follows: “……. Her periodic visits to Pune used to cause strain on the minor child…….” - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 26. Further in para 18 of his chief-examination, he states as follows: “I state that, we the Respondents and minor child moved to Mysore on December 1, 2019. On December 6, the Petitioner No.1 suddenly moved into our Mysore home, declaring that she’d taken a 3–month sabbatical from her office, Shriram Properties Ltd. Quickly the Petitioner No.1 told the minor child that she’d be separating him from the Respondents and taking him away from those 3 months…….” 27. It is the contention of Tripti that after return from Singapore, she got an employment in Bangalore, therefore she requested her parents to shift with the child to Bangalore and for that purpose she has taken a big house on rent in Bangalore. Though it was contented that she has not produced rental agreement, RW.1 in first unnumbered para at page 28 of his cross-examination admits as follows: “…….Though Tripti took Vila in Bangalore in the year 2019, I was unable to shift my location from Mysore to Bangalore as the child was suffering from severe Anxiety…….” 28. Paras 7, 11, 16 and 17 of the chief-examination of RW.2 and paras 7, 14, 16, 17 by way of affidavits is also to the same effect. Further RW.3 at page 8 of her cross-examination - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 further reiterates her admission regarding periodical visits of Tripti to Pune. In page 12 of her cross examination, RW.3 states that Tripti shifted to their house in Srirangapatna on 06.12.2019 i.e., soon after they shifted to Srirangapatna. 29. Ex.R26 is the entire case file of Riaan maintained in NIMHANS during his period in the said hospital between 07.10.2023 and 21.10.2023. The note sheet dated 01.11.2022 in the said document reads as follows: “……. Grandparents (GPS) reported that mother Tripthi was always in touch with Rehaan and wanted to have him with her. - due to her career and some very difficult circumstances she had to leave child with grandparents. (Details will be attached). - Child is going for visitation on every Sunday and is feeling comfortable with parents.” (Emphasis supplied) 30. Thus, the admissions of RWs.1 to 3 and their own document falsifies the contention of the grandparents and aunt before this Court that Tripti had abandoned the child or she had irrevocably surrendered the child. The Trial Court on judicious appreciation of the material on record has rightly rejected the said contention. - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 Reg. Medical condition of the Child: 31. The contention of grandparents and aunt is that due to the troubled marriage of the parents and the aggressive behavior of Tripti and neglect of Apoorva, the child had suffered trauma, after Tripti leaving the child with the grandparents and aunt, the child has developed an emotional bond with them. It is alleged that the criminal proceedings and the G & WC proceedings initiated by the parents had negative effect on the mental health of the child, child is not ready to leave them and go with the parents. It is contended that under such circumstances, the welfare of the child suffers if custody is handed over to the parents, therefore grandparents and aunt need to be appointed as guardian of the child. As against that, the parents contend that for the purpose of these cases the grandparents and aunt have subjected the child to unwanted medication even without the knowledge and consent of the parents. They further contend that the evidence on record clearly shows that the grandparents and aunt themselves gave negative history before the doctor and they have tried to brainwash the child. They further contended that RW.6 is neither a qualified person nor was impartial witness. The - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 evidence of RW.4 and other material on record clearly shows that child is comfortable with the parents. 32. To substantiate such allegation, the grandparents and aunt relied on the evidence of RWs.4 to 6 and Ex.P16, R21, R25, R26, R27, R34, R37 and R38. The trump card of grandparents and aunt to establish disturbed mental health condition of Riaan is RW.6. Admittedly she is from Pune. She claims in her chief-examination that she was treating Riaan since late 2018, but in para 3 of her chief examination she says that in late 2018 Iptisa Agarwal began consultation to help him with his separation anxiety as she was considering to put him in the school. According to her chief-examination itself, Riaan was brought to her for two observations in 2019. She claims that all along support was provided to Riaan by aunt and maternal grandparents. 33. In the chief-examination, RW.6 states that from May 2022 onwards Riaan had started his course of prescription of Psychotropic drugs. She went on saying that police raid, court visitation etc., and fear of separation posed by the parents has caused him disturbances. Ultimately, she declares - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 in her chief-examination that child’s interests are promoted in the custody of grandparents and aunt. She claims that Ex.R5 is the evaluation report dated 01.05.2022 digitally shared by her with the grandparents and aunt and Ex.R25 is the mail dated 03.03.2020 with her clinical observation report along with evaluation report issued by RW.6. Ex.R37/G-mail copy and R38/Psychotherapy report dated 19.10.2023 and 04.08.2023 are said to have been shared by RW.6 with RW.4 Dr. Eesha Sharma regarding Riaan. All her reports went on saying that child is safe with grandparents and aunt. 34. However, RW.6 in her cross-examination admits that she is not a qualified medical doctor. She also admits that she has not mentioned in report dated 03.03.2020 about her interaction with the mother and question of child custody was not brought forth. She unequivocally admits in her cross- examination that she has given the report at the request of Ipsita. She also admits that the symptoms and the background of the child were stated by Ipsita and grandparents. She admits that as per the information given to her, grandmother and aunt were diagnosed with anxiety disorder and were treated. She admits that information given by the care takers - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 i.e., grandparents and aunt may be incorrect and she has not conducted any test on the child. 35. RW.6 further admits that the second report was mainly based to avoid the child being called to High Court of Karnataka again and again. Though Riaan has stated in the report about Courts incident, she had never witnessed them. In this context it is material to note that she claims to have treated the child up to 2023 by which time the proceedings of the Court were pending. There is no material to show that she visited Srirangapatna or child was taken to Pune. By that time the contempt petition filed against grandparents and aunt was pending before this Court. However, for the Court’s question, RW.6 stated that child is very intelligent and matured and he can take care of himself. Her evidence shows that he was aware of his mother and grandmother when he was admitted in NIMHANS for 14 days. Ultimately in last paragraph of her deposition dated 04.01.2024 she testified that from past one and half months there is no complaint from Riaan about his mother. Even RW.1 admitted that RW.6 was not a qualified doctor. The evidence of RW.6 shows that all the stories narrated in her reports were fed by Ipsita and her parents. - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 36. The evidence of RW.6 has to be analyzed along with the evidence of RW.5 and 4. RW.5/Dr.Sowmya Bhaskaran T.S, Psychiatrist, Coimbatore was only summoned to produce Ex.R27/Clinical reports of child Riaan. Ex.R21 dated 22.09.2022 is the letter issued by RW.5. Reading of R21 and R27 coupled with evidence of RW.5 shows that the entries in the case sheet were based on the history furnished by Ipsita and grandparents. RW.5 states that child was referred to her through one Dr.Annie and Ipsita had taken the child to her. As per her evidence, the child was examined in her clinic on 19th, 20th, 21st and 22nd September 2022. She herself states that she has a better qualification than Dr. Annie. She states that child was taking medication since May 2022. Her evidence shows that the child was administrated with Sertraline, a psychotropic drug. But she does not know who had prescribed the said drug. She herself states that she recommended to take the child to NIMHANS. Her evidence clearly shows that pending proceedings before the trial Court, such drug was administered to the child. Though grandparents and aunt claimed that psychotropic drug was prescribed by one Dr. Raghavendra Kumar K, he was not examined. RW.5 says that she did not - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 meet the parents nor ask the parents to meet her. Shockingly all this medical experiments on child took place pending the proceedings, without leave of or information to the court and without the knowledge and consent of the parents. 37. It is admitted that as the aunt and grandparents did not comply the visitation order in W.P.No.8425/2021 passed by learned single judge of this court, Tripti and Apoorva was forced to initiate CCC No.583/2023 before this Court. In those proceedings the child was referred to NIMHANS. Therefore, the child was admitted in NIMHANS on 07.10.2023 and discharged on 21.10.2023. RW.4 who treated the child in NIMHANS produced Ex.R26 the hospital records of Riaan. The evidence of RW.4 and Ex.R26 show that by the time the child was taken to NIMHANS it had already been administered Sertraline, a psychotropic drug. Therefore, for symptoms NIMHANS doctor had to prescribe Resperidone drug. The record of NIMHANS does not disclose who had prescribed such psychotropic drug and what was the necessity for prescribing the same. Even RW.4 states that as told by the grandmother there is history of anxiety and aggression in Riaan when visitation was given to parents, later on grandmother herself - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 stated aggression has come down. RW.4 in her cross examination states that they observed that the child was communicating with his mother, there was no anxiety or aggression due to his separation with maternal aunt. She further stated that just like any normal 7- 8 years old child, Riaan also had problem with adjusting to new changed situation. She says that child’s intellectual and language abilities were good, he has new ideas and child should be provided opportunities to engage with all family members for appropriate and developmentally conducive attachment formation. 38. As a blow to the claim of grandparents and aunt, RW.4 in her re-examination states that she cannot categorically state that the child should remain with grandparents and maternal aunt. For the Court questions, RW.4 said that the child has ability to take care of himself and do his daily activities and the only thing is he needs to be prompted. She further stated that as per their observation mother is able to guide him. RW.4 had found such observations and reached such conclusion on seeing the reports of RWs.5 and 6 as well. Therefore, the evidence of RW.4 discredits the evidence of - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 RW.6 and there is force in the contentions of the parents that RW.6 and her reports were all stage-managed by Ipsita and her parents. Under such circumstance, the contention that handing over the custody of the child to the parents is perilous to the interest of the child is unsustainable. 39. As against that Ipsita, Vishnu and Rashmi themselves have acted detrimental to the interest of the child by exposing him to psychotropic drugs and not sending him to normal school all along. Though they claimed that they had arranged some Australian teacher for home schooling, the said teacher was not examined nor any material was produced to show that it was inevitable to avoid sending the child to normal school. RW.3/ aunt, in her deposition at page 15 goes to the extent of alleging that the judge of this Court at the behest of Tripti asked the police to take action against her which is totally baseless and scandalous. The above facts and circumstances go to show that Ipsita and her parents have not left any stone unturned, legitimate or illegitimate, to hold on to the child to the deprivation of the parents. The Trial Court had placed the transcript of it’s interaction with the child in a sealed cover and the same was opened and perused. The said interaction said to - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 have revealed that the child was not brushing its teeth properly and bathing once in three days. It is no doubt true that in that interaction the child is said to have showed its reluctance to join its parents. But that has to be seen in the context that the child was with Ipsita and her parents and their aversion to Tripti and Apoorva was absorbed by the child. The records show that the child was not sent to formal schooling by Ipsita and her parents. During the pendency of these appeals, this Court interacted with the parties and the child. By that time by virtue of the interim orders of this Court, the child had associated with its parents and the child was found comfortable with his parents. Therefore, this court does not find any error in the finding of the trial court on the issue raised by Ipsita and her parents regarding the medical condition of the child. 40. On perusal of the transcription of the interaction recorded by the Trial Court, the same was resealed and kept in the records. Reg. Antecedents of Apoorva: 41. It was alleged that Apoorva was involved in financial fraud at his work place and he was terminated from service. Therefore, it was contended that handing over the - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 custody of the child to such characterless person is not in the interest of the child. The said facts are denied by Tripti and Apoorva. To prove the said facts, Ipsita and parents relied on the evidence of RW.7 and Ex.R39 and R40. Admittedly Apoorva Verma was employed in Godrej and Boyce at Mumbai. RW.7 is an official of the said company from Bangalore. Even Ex.R39/ letter of appointment dated 04.06.2007 shows that Apoorva was appointed as Deputy Manager in Security Equipment Division in Godrej and Boyce Ltd., Mumbai. 42. Ex.R40 purports to be letter dated 11.07.2017 issued by the said company to Apoorva alleging that as per the audit report he has manipulated his attendance records, forged bills/vouchers for his personal and pecuniary gain of Rs.83,07,085/-. The letter further states that in view of the same, the management had decided to terminate his service and was accordingly terminated with effect from 11.07.2017. The letter purportedly issued by one Harpeet Kaur, Senior Vice President and Head of Human Resources was certified to be the true copy by RW.7/Kuldeepak Singh. But signatory to the said document was not examined. RW.7 admits that Apoorva was working in Singapore unit but Ex.R40 does not mention the - 33 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 same. He states that he is not aware Apoorva was paid PF in India or Singapore. He says he is not aware if Apoorva Verma had a separate contract with the company for the job at Singapore, any enquiry being conducted against Apoorva Verma or that Apoorva resigned in March 2017. He states that he is unaware about statement in Ex.R.40 about embezzlement of money committed in India or Singapore, he does not know about any inquiry or police complaint filed against him. He admits that Ex.R40 is completely silent about holding of any domestic inquiry against Apoorva. In view of non examination of author of Ex.R40 and total ignorance exhibited by RW.7, the trial court is justified in holding that Ipsita and her parents failed to prove the allegation of fraud and misappropriation on the part of Apoorva. 43. It is not only Apoorva, but Tripti the mother has also sought custody. Though it was alleged that she doesn’t have stable mental condition, even the said allegation was not proved. The alleged depression of Tripti spoken by PW.2 was before 2017. Her qualification and employment are not disputed. Except the self serving statement of Ipsita and her parents which was disputed and evidence of RW.7 who - 34 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 exhibited total ignorance about the employment of Apoorva or any inquiry conducted against him, no acceptable evidence was produced to show that he was involved in any act of moral turpitude. Therefore the trial court was justified in rejecting such contention. Reg. financial unaffordability of Tripti and Apoorva: 44. It was contended that Tripti and Apoorva had employment crisis, whereas Ipsita and her parents are well off. Therefore, it is not conducive to hand over the custody of the child to the parents. First of all, the poverty of the parents is not a ground to deny custody to them. History tells that parents of many leaders like Sir M Vishweshwaraiah, Dr. A.P.J Abdul Kalam, Lal Bahadur Shastri, Thomas Alva Edison were not wealthy, still they groomed their children well. Further, the qualification of both the parents and their well paid employment in Singapore before 2017 was not disputed. Back page of Page 11 of Ex.R26 shows that Ipsita herself gave the background of the mother as follows: “on mother’s personality, aunt reported that mother is high achiever….” - 35 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 45. Ipsita and her parents themselves claimed that aspiring for a lucrative career Tripti shifted to Bangalore. It is not their case that Tripti and Apoorva are paupers. RW.1 in his cross examination admits that Tripti had paid him Rs.10 lakhs. Though it was contended that it was for payment of rent for his apartment in Mumbai, the said contention was not proved. Mere non-production of income tax returns does not lead to the inference that they are penniless. Though Ipsita and her parents produced Ex.R28/I.T return of Ipsita for the assessment year 2023-24, the same is post commencement of these proceedings. Nothing was produced to show that she had paid income tax previous to the year 2023-24. Her employer or clients are not examined to prove her income. Therefore, Ex.R28 is not an acceptable document. Under the circumstance, the trial court was justified in rejecting the contention of financial unaffordability of the parents. 46. The Trial court rightly took into consideration the fact that both grandparents are aged and aunt is likely to get married, in the light of such uncertainties, appointing them as guardians is inadvisable. - 36 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 47. Since Ipsita and grandparents have failed to prove that the welfare of the child suffers if the custody is handed over to the parents, all the judgments relied on by them in that regard, do not advance their case. Whereas the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 10 of the judgment in Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi and Another V.s State of U.P and Others8 held that when father has been living, grandparents cannot have a better claim than the father, who is the natural guardian. It was further held that when natural guardian is well employed and educated and there is nothing standing against his legal rights; as a natural guardian he has legitimate desire to have custody of the child, eventhough he is remarried. 48. In these cases also the grandparents and aunt failed to show that the interest of child suffers in the custody of the parents. As against that, the evidence on record established that the grandparents and aunt though were well qualified, exposed the tender aged child to psychotropic drugs that too 37.5mg of Sertraline and 0.25mg of Risperidone (as per Ex.R26-pg 135). Therefore, leaving the child with them itself is harmful to the welfare of the child. They have made their own 8 2025 SCC Online SC 264 - 37 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 daughter/sibling to move every pillar and post to get back her child who trusting them had entrusted him to them in the time of her crisis. Such conduct is certainly inhuman. Under the circumstance, the trial court should not have granted visitation rights to them. Unless they patch up with the parents and instill confidence in their mind, the visitation cannot be permitted. Therefore, appeals are liable to be dismissed and cross objections deserve to be allowed. Hence the following: ORDER: MFA No.8408/2024 and MFA No.8418/2024 are hereby dismissed. MFA CROB No.4/2025 and MFA CROB No.6/2025 are hereby allowed. The impugned Judgment and decree granting custody of the ward/child Master Riaan Verma @ Riaan Agarwal to his parents is hereby confirmed. The impugned decree of the trial Court providing visitation rights to the petitioners in G and WC No.9/2020 is modified as follows: Petitioners in G & WC No.9/2020 can visit the child Master Riaan Verma @ Riaan Agarwal provided if both parties come to a consensus. - 38 - NC: 2025:KHC:16654-DB MFA No.8408/2024 C/W MFA No.8418/2024 MFA.CROB No.4/2025 MFA.CROB No.6/2025 Having regard to the relationship of the parties, no order as to costs. All pending applications stood disposed of. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE AKC/PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45