- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1413-DB MFA No. 101147 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101147 OF 2024 (GW-) BETWEEN: SHRI. KIRAN S/O. ASHOK BANNAD, AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. OPPOSITE GERMAN HOSPITAL, NEAR AMBA BHAVANI TEMPLE, BETAGERI, DIST. GADAG-582102. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ROHIT S. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. ABHILASHA W/O. KIRAN BANNAD URFA SMT. ABHILASHA D/O. SHRIKANT BALAPPA ARALIKATTI, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. WARD NO.6, GUGGARI PETH, ILAKAL, DIST. BAGALKOT-587125. …RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 47(A) OF GUARDIANS AND WARD ACT.1890, PRAYING TO, IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON DATED 02.03.2024 IN G & WC NO.3/2022 ON THE FILE OF PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT GADAG, BE SET ASIDE AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1413-DB MFA No. 101147 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) This appeal is as against the order dated 02.03.2024 in G & WC No.3/2022 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag [for short, ‘the Family Court’]. The respondent has filed this application under the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 for her appointment as the guardian of her minor child, Mast. Manvith. 2. The Family Court, in the light of the ocular and documentary evidence brought on record, has dismissed the respondent’s application but granting the respondent visiting rights allowing her to take the child on every third Saturday of the month between 10:00 a.m. and 05:00 p.m. from the District Legal Services Authority premises, Gadag. The Family Court has observed that the parents [the appellant and respondent] will be at liberty to plan birthdays for the child with the respondent having the right to be with - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1413-DB MFA No. 101147 of 2024 the child between 09:00 a.m. and 04:00 p.m. during such days. 3. Sri. Rohit S. Patil, the learned counsel for the appellant, is heard for final disposal. The respondent though served has remained unrepresented. Sri. Rohit S. Patil prefaces his submission in support of the appeal stating that, though the Family Court’s impugned order is in the month of March 2024, the respondent has not made any efforts to take the child in exercise of the visiting rights granted to her. Sri. Rohit S. Patil states that the appellant’s reason to prefer this appeal is that the Family Court, notwithstanding the observations as regards the respondent’s mental health, has granted to her access to the child without any supervision. Sri. Rohit S. Patil submits that this Court must modify the Family Court’s direction on respondent’s visiting rights to the child on every third Saturday of the month observing that the respondent must be accompanied by one of her parents. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1413-DB MFA No. 101147 of 2024 4. The question: whether there must be modification in terms sought for is, considered on perusal of the reasons assigned by the Family Court to reject the respondent’s request for custody and guardianship and limiting visiting rights to every third Saturday of the month as also the fact that the respondent has not challenged such findings. The Family Court, after a detailed discussion of the evidence [including Ex. R13, a medical certificate issued by NIMHANS, Bengaluru about the respondent’s health] has observed that that there would be risk of harm to the child because of the respondent’s psychiatric condition. It is seen from Ex. R13, a copy of which is made over by Sri. Rohit S. Patil during the course of hearing, that the Doctor has opined that the respondent and her family are not very well informed about the respondent’s conduct. 5. If this evidence has chiefly prevailed with the Family Court and if these reasons are not challenged, this Court must opine, especially with the appellant contending that the respondent has not come to take the child after the impugned judgment, that it would be - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1413-DB MFA No. 101147 of 2024 reasonable to opine that the respondent when she picks the child in exercise of her visiting rights must be accompanied by one of her parents and one of them must be with the child and the respondent right through. 6. In view of the above, the point for consideration is answered accordingly, and the Family Court’s order granting visiting rights to the respondent on every third Saturday of the month between 10:00 a.m. and 05:00 p.m. stands modified to read that during this time, the respondent shall be accompanied by at least one of her parents. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE RSH, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 36