- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41112-DB MFA No. 3617 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3617 OF 2017 (GW) BETWEEN: SRI.G.MANJUNATH, S/O LATE M.GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT SANTHE MAIDANA, BHOVI COLONY, SHANTHI NAGAR KOLAR TOWN-563 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.VEERANNA G. TIGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT.R.S.SWETHA, W/O G.MANJUNATH, D/O SONNAPPAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT RAMAPURA VILLAGE, HOLUR HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.M.THYAGARAJ, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 47(1) OF GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT 1890, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41112-DB MFA No. 3617 of 2017 23.02.2017 PASSED IN G AND WC 01/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 7 AND 8 OF INDIAN GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The instant appeal has been filed seeking to set aside an order dated 23.02.2017 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Kolar in G & W.C. No.1/2015, whereby an application under Sections 7 and 8 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 18901, moved by the appellant was partly allowed. 1 G & W Act, 1890 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41112-DB MFA No. 3617 of 2017 3. A perusal of the impugned order reflects that marriage of the parties was solemnized on 04.05.2007 and on 28.09.2010, the respondent gave birth to a male child named Ujwal. It is alleged by the appellant that the respondent, on discharge from the hospital went to her maternal home without informing the appellant. Inspite of several panchayaths, she never returned to her marital home; hence, a petition for restitution of conjugal rights was filed bearing M.C.No.106/2013, which came to be allowed on 11.11.2014, but the respondent did not allow the appellant access to the minor child. It was alleged in the petition that the petitioner was in a better position to take care of the child and the respondent cannot provide proper education for better socialization of the child. The appellant being a natural guardian is entitled to the custody of the minor child. 4. The respondent filed her objections and admitted the relationship, but contended that the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41112-DB MFA No. 3617 of 2017 petitioner filed the petition with malafide intention to harass the respondent. 5. It was stated that pursuant to the proceedings claiming maintenance, an order was passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, directing the appellant to pay a monthly interim maintenance of Rs.3250/-. Only thereafter, the petitioner filed the petition for custody of a minor child. It was alleged that ever since the birth of the child on 28.09.2010, the appellant never asked for the custody of the minor child, which showed that he had no love and affection for the child. The child was with the respondent-mother and since it is admitted too, it is stated that the child will be depressed, if custody of the child is given to the appellant, and the appellant has no other person to take care and custody of the minor child. It was alleged that the appellant was living with his brother and the petition was filed only with a malafide intention. The testimony of the appellant who appeared as PW.1 and of the respondent who appeared as RW.1 were - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41112-DB MFA No. 3617 of 2017 considered by the Family Court and it was concluded that given the fact that the welfare of the minor child was of paramount consideration, the claim of the appellant for exclusive guardianship by the appellant, was devoid of merit. The provisions of Section 15 of the G & W Act, 1890 was referred to and it was directed that the appellant would have access to look after the minor child and the respondent was directed to provide convenient atmosphere to the appellant. In that regard, the child was also questioned by the Court which found that the answers given by the child were rational and he wanted to continue with the mother. Considering the aforesaid, the petition was partly allowed. It was directed that the appellant and the respondent be jointly considered as guardians and the appellant was to have access to the minor child and look after the welfare and paramount interest of the minor child. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly stated that the evidence on record has been properly - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41112-DB MFA No. 3617 of 2017 considered by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kolar. 7. We have perused the judgment. We find that there is no material illegality or irregularity in the order that would merit reconsideration of the petition. The Family Court has balanced the interests of both the parties and has taken note into account the paramount interest of the minor child. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11