Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 72062 (KAR)

SRI MALLIKARJUN P v. SMT. PALLAVI K V

WP/19249/2025 · 2025-08-07

Lalitha Kanneganti

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30703 WP No. 19249 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 19249 OF 2025 (GM-FC) ETWEEN: SRI MALLIKARJUN P., S/O PRABHAKAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT 'AMMA NILAYA', 4TH CROSS, ANNANAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA - 577201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KENDULI S.M., ADV.) AND: SMT. PALLAVI K V W/O MALLIKARJUN P AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, 7TH CROSS, MANJUNATHA BADAVANE, SHIVAMOGGA - 577201. WARD: CHIRANTHAN M. GOWDA S/O MALLIKARJUN P., AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL MOTHER SMT. PALLAVI K V …RESPONDENT (BY MS. T.ASHA, ADV., V/O DATED: 01/08/2025.) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30703 WP No. 19249 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25/04/2025, IN G AND WC. NO.14/2024, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT SHIVAMOGGA, REJECTING THE IA NO.1, FOR SEEKING VISITATION RIGHT FOR LACK OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION FURTHER G AND WC PETITION IS RETURNED WITH A DIRECTION TO PRESENT IT BEFORE THE COURT WHERE THE CHILD IS RESIDING, VIDE ANNEXURE-F TO THE WRIT PETITION TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders passed on IA No.1 in G & WC No.14/2024 dated 25.04.2025 by the Family Court, Shivamogga whereby the Court had passed an order rejecting IA No.1 filed by the petitioner seeking visitation rights for lack of territorial jurisdiction as the child is residing and studying in Davangere and the petition under Sections 7,10 and 25 of the G & WC Act, seeking custody of the child is returned with a direction to present it before the Court where the child is residing. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-father submits that the parties are residing in Shivamogga and the wife had - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30703 WP No. 19249 of 2025 given a complaint in Shivamogga and also she has filed a petition seeking divorce against the husband in the Court at Shivamogga. Hence, he has filed G & WC No.14/2024 before the Family Court at Shivamogga seeking custody and filed application for visitation and that came to be dismissed on the ground that the boy is residing in Davangere. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Courts at Shivamogga has also jurisdiction as both the parties are residing in Shivamogga and also the mother has filed the MC for divorce which is pending on the file of Family Court, Shivamogga. Hence, it is submitted that without considering all these factors, had held that the Court at Shivamogga has no jurisdiction and it has to be presented before the Court at Davangere where the boy is residing. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and perused the material on record. 5. Filing the case at Shivamogga seeking divorce or any other complaint, altogether stands on different footing where the petitions are filed under the Hindu Marriage Act. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30703 WP No. 19249 of 2025 When the petition is filed under the provisions of G & WC Act, Section 9 of the Act is very clear that the Court has jurisdiction to hear applications regarding the guardianship of a minor in the jurisdiction of the Court where the minor ordinarily resides. In this case, after the disputes, the wife is residing in Davangere for the last 1 1/2 years and the boy is also residing and studying at Davangere. Hence, for all practical purposes, the ordinary place of residence of the boy is Davangere but not Shivamogga and the Family Court had rightly passed orders and this Court finds no reason to interfere with. 6. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Writ Petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As' in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1