- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53313 WP No. 19003 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 19003 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: ABHINAV LAL AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O PRADEEP LAL R/AT NO.384, 16TH MAIN 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANAGALA BANGALORE -560034. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SMITA N., ADVOCATE) AND: VIDHI LAL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O ABHINAV LAL 539, 8TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS 4TH BLOCK, KORAMANAGALA Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53313 WP No. 19003 of 2025 BANGALORE -560034. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. IAN ISIDORE PRAKASH LEWIS, ADVOCATE) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2025 PASSED BY V ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT DISMISSING IA NO.7 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN MC NO. 3654/2022 (ANNX- A); PERMIT THE PETITIONER AND HIS PARENTS TO VISIT HIS MINOR DAUGHTER AIRA AGED 8 YEARS EVERY SATURDAY BETWEEN 10.30 AM TO 3 PM AT KARNATAKA MEDIATION CENTER OR A PUBLIC PLACE, BANGALORE UNDER SUPERVISION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53313 WP No. 19003 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.7 in M.C.No.3654/2022 dated 14.03.2025 by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, the petitioner/father is before this Court. 2. The parties are referred to as father, mother and daughter for the sake of convenience. 3. The mother had filed M.C.No.3654/2022 seeking divorce. When the matter was at the stage of evidence of the mother, on 16.11.2023, the father had filed I.A.No.6 under Section 151 of CPC to stay the further proceedings of the case till disposal of the Special C.C.No.2261/2022 on the file of the Fast Track Special Court No.1, Bengaluru City. When the matter was at the stage of hearing on I.A.No.6, on 01.06.2024, the father had filed I.A.No.7 under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking permission to him and to his parents, to visit his minor daughter every Saturday between 10:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., at the Mediation Centre, Bengaluru. 4. The Family Court by order impugned had rejected both the applications. While dismissing the application, the Family - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53313 WP No. 19003 of 2025 Court had observed that Special CC.No.2261/2022 is pending on the file of the Fast Track Court No.1, Bengaluru City against the father for the offences punishable under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. In the said case, the minor daughter of the parties is the victim and it is alleged that the father being the father of the victim has committed the sexual abuse on his five years old daughter. As per the order dated 20.06.2022 passed on I.A.Nos.2 and 3, the Family Court was pleased to grant ex- parte order of temporary injunction restraining the father from taking his minor daughter from the custody of the mother and from taking her out of the jurisdiction of the Family Court till further orders. The Family Court had observed that the outcome of the Special CC.No.2261/2022 will have an impact on the proceedings as the mother raised the same grounds in this case also. According to the father, since the grounds in the criminal case as well as in this case are one and the same, further proceedings of this case are to be stayed till the disposal of criminal case. 5. The Family Court had observed that in the criminal case, child is the victim and in the case on hand, mother has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53313 WP No. 19003 of 2025 pleaded several incidents of alleged cruelty meted out on her and hence, the Family Court had felt that the father has not made out a sufficient ground to stay the further proceedings of the case till the disposal of Special CC.No.2261/2022 on the file of the Fast Track Court No.1, Bengaluru City. The Family Court had observed that the High Court of Karnataka has issued guidelines for recording evidence of vulnerable witnesses issued as per the notification No.DJBS/11/2022 dated 25.07.2022. The said guidelines prescribe for recording depositions of vulnerable witnesses in order to enable them to give their best evidence in criminal proceedings, each witness is unique and is to be addressed accordingly. The objectives of the said guidelines is to enable vulnerable witnesses to depose freely before any Court in a safe and secure environment and to ensure that rights of all the parties in the judicial process are effectively implemented. In the context of the criminal process, the right of the accused to a fair trial and due process, the right of the victim to take part effectively in the proceedings to be treated sensitively and not to subject to secondary victimization and the protection of the rights of the vulnerable witnesses are effectively implemented. Vulnerable witness means and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53313 WP No. 19003 of 2025 includes any child victim or witness who has not completed 18 years of age and any victim of an offence under the POCSO Act, 2012. In the guidelines, it is further stated that anxiety about threats from the accused and/or their associates, confusion and guilty about testifying against family members or relatives and face to face contact with the accused, worry about retaliation or repercussions for themselves or their family etc. are the factors which cause stress to the vulnerable witnesses. 6. The Family Court was of the view that in the matters of custody of minor child, the Court has to look at the best interest of the child and the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child and not the rights of the parties. On perusal of the entire material on record, at this stage, the Family Court had opined that since the father is facing criminal trial of the POCSO case in which his minor daughter is the victim, the child should be enabled to depose freely and they are to be treated sensitively and not to subject to secondary victimization. Further, the mother has contended that the father is pressuring her and the minor daughter to turn hostile in the criminal case. It is not proper to allow the father or his parents to meet his - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53313 WP No. 19003 of 2025 minor daughter. Under these circumstances, the Family Court had dismissed the I.A.No.7. Accordingly, both I.A.Nos.6 and 7 were dismissed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/father submits that the petitioner is not pressing I.A.No.6. Coming to I.A.No.7, it is submitted that if the trial in the POCSO case takes years, till such time, the father cannot be deprived of the company of his daughter. It is submitted that what the father is seeking is a supervised visitation in the mediation center along with the grandparents and there is no threat to the child as it is a supervised visitation. He submits that the complaint that is given by the mother clearly shows that she has given the same only to implicate the father, for the best reasons known to her. It is submitted that in every case where a POCSO case is registered against the father, that itself cannot be a reason for the Court to deprive the father from meeting the child. It is submitted that the child is very much attached to the father. The Family Court without considering all these aspects and only considering the fact that the father is an accused in POCSO - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53313 WP No. 19003 of 2025 case and the victim is his daughter had denied the visitation which is not a reasoned order. 8. Learned counsel had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Yashita Sahu Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others1, he had relied on paragraph No.22 which reads as follows: "22. A child, especially a child of tender years requires the love, affection, company, protection of both parents. This is not only the requirement of the child but is his/her basic human right. Just because the parents are at war with each other, does not mean that the child should be denied the care, affection, love or protection of any one of the two parents. A child is not an inanimate object which can be tossed from one parent to the other. Every separation, every reunion may have a traumatic and psychosomatic impact on the child. Therefore, it is to be ensured that the court weighs each and every circumstance very carefully before deciding how and in what manner the custody of the child should be shared between both the parents. Even if the custody is given to one parent the other parent must have sufficient visitation rights to ensure that the child keeps in touch with the other parent and does not lose social, physical and psychological contact with any one of the two parents. It is only in extreme circumstances that one parent should be denied contact with the child. Reasons must be assigned if one parent is to be denied any visitation rights or contact with the child. Courts dealing with the custody matters must while deciding issues of custody clearly define the nature, manner and specifics of the visitation rights." 9. He had relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in case of Abhay Manohar Pant Vs. The State of 1 (2020) 3 SCC 67 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53313 WP No. 19003 of 2025 Maharashtra and Others arising out of Criminal Revision Application No.277/2022 dated 19.10.2022. He had relied on paragraph No.13 of the said judgment which reads as follows: "13. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, in my opinion, mere filing pendency of the case under POCSO Act against the petitioner is not sufficient to deny even visitation rights to the natural father." 10. He had relied on the judgment of this Court in case of Mr.Pascal Mazurier Vs. Mrs. Suja Jones Mazurier arising out of WP.No.30651/2014 dated 11.07.2024. He relied on paragraph Nos.8 and 9 which reads as follows: "8. Then, coming to the case of the girl who is now 15 years old, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the father that as the Court has acquitted the father in the criminal case and according to him, those are the allegations and a story put forth by the mother in view of the differences between both of them and a competent criminal court has acquitted him. Now there cannot be any reason not to grant the interim custody/visitation of the child and he has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of the criminal court where the father is acquitted. This Court is conscious and cannot lose sight of the fact that right from 2018 till now the father has never asked for the interim custody of the daughter except in I.A.No.14. In the interlocutory applications that were filed before this Court, he was continuously asking for the visitation or interim custody of both the boys and did not press with regard to interim custody of the daughter. But the fact remains is that he was never having custody of the daughter right from 2012 till 2024. However on and off she was visiting the father. The father never had the visitation or interim custody of the daughter. During - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53313 WP No. 19003 of 2025 May 2021, along with two brothers, she stayed with the father. It is also an admitted fact that against the judgment of acquittal, the mother has filed an appeal and the appeal is pending consideration. This Court at this point of time, considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent / mother and also submission made on behalf of the minor, expressing the feelings of the daughter that she wanted to have some more time to settle herself, this Court is not inclined to pass any orders. In criminal case, on the touchstone of beyond reasonable doubt the orders are passed and admittedly an appeal is pending and this Court is not expressed any opinion. But this Court has very much concerned about the feelings of the daughter. But unless and until she meets the father often, the submission that is made that she just wants time to get in touch with the father, and to accept the father cannot be appreciated. 9. In that view of the matter, every fortnightly whenever the father is exercising the interim custody of the second son, the daughter can accompany him and spend about two hours with the father on Sunday. The daughter can come to the father’s place on Sunday i.e., every alternative Sunday she shall meet her father at the father’s place in between 10 O’clock and 12 O’clock. The father shall pick up and drop his daughter. In respect to any other claim on vacations and on other occasions, both parties can decide and in case of any dispute, an appropriate application can be moved before the Family Court." 11. Relying on these judgments, learned counsel for the father submits that the father is entitled for the visitation. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the mother has vehemently opposed the same and he had drawn the attention of this Court to the complaint that is given by the mother. The conversation of the victim with the child counselor and it is submitted that in the statement given by the girl under Section - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53313 WP No. 19003 of 2025 164 of Cr.P.C. also, the girl had consistently deposed before the Court how the father/father is behaving with her. A girl who is aged 5 years old cannot be tutored as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the father. It is submitted that in fact, when the father was stalking the child, they gave a complaint to the Police. He submits that when the father is the accused and his daughter is the victim, looking at the interaction the counselor had with her, any kind of interaction with the father at this stage, when the trial is pending is not in the interest of the child. It is submitted that in the other judgments which the learned counsel is relying on, there are cases where he is acquitted or the trial is completed. When the girl appeared before the counselor, she had shown lot of reluctance to even talk about the father. It is submitted that in these circumstances, having any kind of contact with the father is not in the welfare of the child and even it would have an impact and hamper the case that is coming up. It is submitted that the Family Court had rightly considered and dismissed the I.A. and there are no grounds to interfere. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53313 WP No. 19003 of 2025 13. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The admitted facts of the case are that a POCSO complaint is registered against the father and the victim is his own daughter who is aged 5 years old. In the statement given under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., before the Police and with the counselor, the daughter has consistently stated what has happened to her. Whether the petitioner/father has committed an offence or not will be decided in the criminal case. At this stage, looking at the complaint that is given by the mother and the subsequent sessions the girl had with the counselor, this Court is of the view that prima facie the girl has expressed certain things. Whether it is tutored or it has really happened will be decided by the Court. But at this stage, this Court exercising the parens patriae jurisdiction cannot grant visitation to the father or to the paternal grandparents. 14. The judgments that are relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be applied to the facts of this case as it all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. He has relied on the judgment of this Court in case of - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53313 WP No. 19003 of 2025 Mr.Pascal Mazurier referred supra. In that case, the father was acquitted in the criminal case which is not the same situation in this case. At this juncture, it is not at all in the interest of the minor to meet the father or the grandparents. The Family Court had rightly considered and passed an order. In these circumstances, this Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Family Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 79