- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37431 WP No. 26823 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 26823 OF 2024 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SMT DIVYA K.C., W/O KARAN CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT 161, 6TH CROSS, ST BED, 4TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU -560 034 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRATHIMA S.K., ADVOCATE) AND: KARAN CHANDRASHEKAR S/O A.CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO. 480, 13TH MAIN 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU- 560 034 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. AZHAR ALI FAROOQI, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 05.01.2024 IN G AND WC NO. 137/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-J PASSED BY THE HONBLE V ADDL. PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT BENGALURU ON IA NO. 8 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SEC. 12 OF GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT 1890 R/W ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 SEC 151 OF CPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37431 WP No. 26823 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.8 in G&WC.No.137/2023 dated 05.01.2024 by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the Family Court had allowed I.A.No.8 filed under Section 12 of G&WC Act read with Order 39 Rule 1, 2 and Section 151 of CPC and directed the mother not to take the children out of jurisdiction of the Court till disposal of the petition, the petitioner/mother is before this Court. 2. The parties are referred to as father and mother for the sake of convenience. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/mother submits that by way of impugned order, the Family Court had partly allowed I.A.No.5 filed by the father under Section 12 of G&WC Act read with Order 39 Rule 1, 2 and Section 151 of CPC and granted visitation rights to meet his children at Children Visiting Home, BMC, on every Thursday between 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. It is submitted that this Court had granted the visitation of the elder child from 10:00 a.m. on Saturday to 10 a.m. on Sunday and for the younger child, it is 10 a.m. to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37431 WP No. 26823 of 2024 02.00 p.m. on Saturday. It is submitted that the mother is complying with the order of the Court. It is submitted that because of this order, even for a short distance outside Bengaluru, she is not in a position to travel and in fact when she travelled to Nandi Hills, which is 70 kilometers away from Bengaluru, the father has issued a contempt notice to the mother. It is submitted that mother has no intention to take the children out of the jurisdiction or to deprive the father from visitation. But she as a human being also has a right to move around and by order impugned, she cannot be deprived of her fundamental rights just because a matter is pending before the Family Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/father submits that there are cases registered against the brother of the mother under the provisions of the POCSO Act for alleged act against his own daughter. It is submitted that the brother is staying in the very same house and it is not in the interest of the children and the children are not safe in that house. Earlier, mother has given an affidavit that he is not staying in the house and he has the photographs to show that he is holding - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37431 WP No. 26823 of 2024 the children. It is submitted that the children are not secured in that house and now if she is permitted to leave Bangalore, there would be interaction with the brother which is not in the interest of the children. It is submitted that the Family Court considering all these aspects had rightly directed the mother not to take the children out of jurisdiction of the Court. It is submitted that he has already filed an I.A. bringing all these facts about the brother staying in the house and having close access to the children and that I.A. is pending consideration before the Family Court. It is submitted that at this point of time, any modification to the order would not be in the interest of the children. It is submitted that he has also filed I.A. seeking visitation during the vacations and if an order is passed in the I.As. and the mother leaves Bengaluru, he would be deprived of his right to have the access to the children. It is submitted that no interference is called for and this writ petition needs to be dismissed. Further, the mother's family is having business throughout India and there is every scope that they may relocate. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37431 WP No. 26823 of 2024 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. This Court had perused the order passed in I.A.No.8. The Family Court had observed that the mother is also an educated person and she may take up job anywhere and it is apprehension of the father that the mother may shift the child. Therefore, considering the facts of the case, issuance of direction to the mother is necessary not to take the children out of the jurisdiction of the Court till disposal of the petition. This G&WC is filed in the year 2023 and it is still pending on orders on I.A. and the trial is not yet commenced. When the G&WC will be disposed of is not known. When an application is filed seeking a direction restraining the mother from taking the children out of jurisdiction of the Court, in a mechanical manner, the Court should not pass any orders. If the cases are taking years together and if there is an order that a party should not leave the jurisdiction of the Court, it would not be a justified order where a person’s right to life and freedom of moment is completely curtailed. When these kinds of orders are passed, the Court has to impose reasonable restrictions. If the apprehension is that the mother will leave the country with the children, the Court can pass an order that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37431 WP No. 26823 of 2024 the passports of the children be deposited before the Court. But in this case, the son's passport is expired and the daughter has no passport. In that case, question of taking the children outside the country will not arise. Then coming to the aspect of going around, if the mother makes any efforts to settle somewhere contrary to the orders of the Family Court, the Family Court can always take appropriate steps to ensure that they are brought within the jurisdiction of the Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Family Court cannot impose such restriction as long as the orders of the Court are complied with. That order should always be a last resort when the party is not complying with the orders. 6. Then coming to the visitation, the visitation is on Saturdays. So, during the remaining days, the children are in the care and custody of the mother. The contention of the father is that the brother of the mother is staying at the house and whether it is correct or not correct and whether it is in the interest of the children or not, that will be decided by the Family Court in the pending application before the Court. If the mother along with the children wants to go outside Bengaluru - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37431 WP No. 26823 of 2024 on the other days for any of the reasons, the father cannot have any say in that and for that they cannot flag the issue of the brother and this Court do not find any merits in the said submission. A person who is staying throughout the week in the house and if they are permitted to leave outside the jurisdiction of the Court, it will not have any impact as submitted by the learned counsel for the father. It is submitted that some applications are filed seeking visitation on vacation. If those applications are heard and decided by the Family Court and if visitation is granted, the mother is bound by those orders and naturally, she cannot leave the jurisdiction of the Family Court during those days of visitation that is granted to the father. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The order passed in I.A.No.8 in G&WC.No.137/2023 dated 05.01.2024 by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, is set aside. ii. Any of the observations that are made by this Court are only for the limited purpose of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37431 WP No. 26823 of 2024 disposing of this petition and it would not come in the way of the respondent in the pending I.A. and the Family Court shall decide the pending I.A. with regard to the brother of the petitioner in accordance with law. iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. iv. All I.As. in the petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19