- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37213 WP No. 26997 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 26997 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: RAM NITHIN BAALAY S/O. LATE MR. BHOOMA RAJAM, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1-8-700/21, PADMA COLONY, NALLAKUNTA, HYDERABAD - 500 044. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. DEEPA J., ADVOCATE) AND: MEGHA BORDOLOI D/O. MRIDUL KUMAR BORDOLOI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 1904, PRESTIGE KEW GARDENS, YEMALUR MAIN ROAD, YEMALUR, BENGALURU - 560 037. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. M. S. APARNA RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. GEETHA DEVI M. P., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE II ADDITIONAL FAMILY JUDGE, BENGALURU, DATED 23/08/2025 IN G AND WC NO.3/2022, IN SO FAR AS IT DISMISSES I.A. NO. 29 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR FESTIVAL CUSTODY OF HIS MINOR SON NEEL BAALAY, ON THE ERRONEOUS GROUND THAT CUSTODY DURING HOLIDAYS MUST BE EXERCISED ONLY IN BENGALURU AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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:37213 WP No. 26997 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.29 in G&WC.No.3/2022 dated 23.08.2025 by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the Family Court had dismissed the application filed by the father, the petitioner/father is before this Court. 2. The parties are referred to as father and mother for the sake of convenience. 3. The father has filed the application seeking custody of the minor child from the evening of Monday 25.08.2025 to the evening of Thursday 28.08.2025, to enable them to travel to Hyderabad for the Vinayaka Chavithi (Ganesh Chaturthi) festival, in accordance with the spirit and entitlement under the order dated 25.02.2025 in WP.No.27355/2024, so that the child may celebrate the festival with his father, paternal grandmother and extended family at his home in Hyderabad for the first time. 4. The Family Court by way of order impugned had dismissed the application. While dismissing the application, the Family Court had recorded the objections of the mother and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37213 WP No. 26997 of 2025 also extracted relevant portion of the order passed in WP.No.27355/2024 dated 25.02.2025 and observed that to claim his entitlement in the light of the order, first the father have to prove that there is holidays declared by the school for more than four days i.e., for a week. It is the contention of the mother that the school has declared holidays only on 26th and 27th of August 2025 as per the academic calendar of the minor child's school and in support of the case, the mother has produced the academic calendar of the school for the year 2025-26 which is prima facie in support of her case. To establish the contention of the father that the minor child's school has declared holidays on 23rd, 24th, 26th and 27th of August 2025 with only 25th August being working day in between, the father has not produced any supportive documents. As per the order of the High Court, the father shall spend his visitation/interim custody of 50% in Bengaluru. Thus, he cannot take the minor child out of the limits of Bengaluru and he cannot travel to Hyderabad. Therefore, the Family Court had observed that the preliminary objections raised by the mother holds water and the father is prima facie not entitled for the relief sought in I.A.No.29 in view of the order under which - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37213 WP No. 26997 of 2025 he is claiming the relief in the application. Hence, the other grounds urged in support of I.A.No.29 and the counter objections to the said grounds do not survive for consideration and accordingly dismissed the application. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the father submits that when the father wanted to take the child to Hyderabad to celebrate the festival, the Family Court ought to have independently heard the application on the merits of it as on the earlier occasions, he had taken the child to Hyderabad and certain orders were passed by the High Court. It is submitted that the Family Court had failed to appreciate the facts of the case and had failed to grant the custody. It is submitted that in the light of the order passed by this Court in WP.No.27355/2024, the father is entitled to make a request and the same shall be allowed and the Court has failed to consider the same and dismissed the application. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/mother has argued in support of the order and submits that the Family Court had rightly dismissed the application and without any basis and contrary to the orders passed by the High Court, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37213 WP No. 26997 of 2025 father is coming up with these kinds of applications and he is not entitled for any custody and the Family Court had rightly dismissed the application. 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. This Court has perused I.A.No.29 that is filed by the father and the prayer that is sought. A bare perusal of the prayer makes it very clear that in the light of the order passed in WP.No.27355/2024, the father wants his rights to be adjudicated by the Family Court and the Family Court had rightly understood what has been asked by the father and had rightly observed that there is no such order by the High Court to take the child out of Bengaluru and the Court had also observed about the holidays as per the academic calendar produced by the mother and on these two grounds, the Family Court had rejected the request made by the father and this Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court. In this case, the Court had granted visitation and at every point of time there is interference by the Court and the father has been granted sufficient visitation and in spite of the same, repeated writ petitions are being filed before this Court. It appears that in the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37213 WP No. 26997 of 2025 family matters, the parties who have the capacity to engage the advocates, as a routine practice are coming to the Courts by filing one case after the other. When the disputes are going on, the interim arrangement is always to see that the non- custodial parent will get sufficient opportunity to spend the time with the child and ultimately the disputes will be decided by the Court. But unfortunately, with all these I.As., that are filed repeatedly, time and again, the Courts are burdened with work and they are not able to deal with the main matters. This aspect has to be borne in mind by both the parties to this writ petition and hereafter, unnecessary applications will be dismissed by this Court with exemplary costs and this is referring to both the parties. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17