- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29486 WP No. 18585 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 18585 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: MRS. NETRA SRIKANTH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, D/O MR.KANNANKOTE SRIKANTH, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT 2781, ELMWOOD AVE, ROCHESTER NEW YORK 14618. PASSPORT NO. A10471794 EMAIL. NETRASRIKANTH@GMAIL.COM …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GAURAV SINGH GAUR, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. RAGHAVA K.KALYANARAMAN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, SON OF MR KALYANARAMAN, DURGADAS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO. 64/1, 1ST MAIN, JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION, BANGALORE 560 046. PASSPORT NO. 567653736 EMAIL.RAGHAVA.KK@GMAIL.COM …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.AZHAR MEER, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF EX/181/2024 MR. RAGHAVA K. KALYANARAMAN V. NETRA SRIKANTH, PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE IIIRD ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29486 WP No. 18585 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A.No.5 in Ex.P.181/2024 dated 19.04.2025 by the III Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, the mother is before this court. 2. Both the parties are referred to as mother and father for the sake of convenience. 3. The father and the mother have initially entered into a compromise and thereafter the said compromise is modified. As per the said compromise Clause (a) to (f) are relevant for the purpose of this petition which are as follows: a)The petitioner will relocate to the USA along with the four children and live with her parents for the present. The children will be admitted to Public school in Lexington, Public school district ares, Boston, Massachusetts. b). The respondent will have daily access to the children over telephone/video call for at least one hour. Time and duration of such interaction will be decided upon by the parties depending upon the children's schedule. The petitioner will ensure such daily interaction if the respondent desires It. During the weekends, the duration of the call shall be for 2 hours each Lay. The respondent will provide one telephone/ instrument for such communication and pay the monthly charges for the same. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29486 WP No. 18585 of 2025 c). The children shall spend their entire/ part of school vacations with the respondent. In the event, the respondent is unable to travel to the USA to have the children's interim custody for any part of their vacations, he shall intimate the same to the petitioner at least one month prior to the commencement of the vacation to enable the petitioner to make alternate arrangements. (d). If the respondent visits the USA, he shall have interim custody of the children during his stay in Lexington/Boston. He shall intimate the petitioner such visit at least one week prior. (e).the event of the respondent relocating to Massachusetts, the agree to revert to joint physical custody and the children will live each parent for 3 ½ days or one week alternatively which shall ually be decided by the parties. (f) Given the nature of the respondent's vocation, he has the opportunity travelling to various parts of the world for varied experiences which will be beneficial to any or all of the children. The petitioner and the respondent agree that the respondent shall have the right/ liberty to take any or all of the children on such trips even if it results in the child/children missing out on their regular schedule for some time, after mutual discussion/ deliberation, however subject to the concerned school/s granting permission/leave of absence. 4. It is the case of the father that as per the terms of the compromise, in the year 2022 the children came to India, in 2023 the father has travelled to the USA. In 2024, though he had made arrangements for travel from USA to India, the children and the mother have not come. In fact in between - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29486 WP No. 18585 of 2025 this period, as the mother got re-married, the elder son was not comfortable, he came to India to stay with the father. 5. Further, it is the submission of the father that for one year mother and the children came to India and the next year he had been to USA. Now the mother has failed to comply with the compromise petition and she has not come to India nor she has sent the children to India. Hence, he has filed a Execution Petition. It is also submitted that the mother having entered into a compromise has filed a petition in USA and sought for exclusive custody of the children and obtained an interim order whereby the mother was granted primary residence of the minor children and father to have supervise visitation of the minor children in USA. 6. The respondent/mother has raised objections with regard to the maintainability as there is no order by the court that as per the compromise the mother has to send the children to India. As such this execution is not maintainable. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29486 WP No. 18585 of 2025 7. After hearing both the parties, the family court has passed the order, whereby the court observes that in Misc.No.67/2020 the mother was restrained by order dated 12.07.2024 from pursuing the case filed before the family court of State of New York. The execution petition is filed under Order 21 Rule 11 of CPC for the execution of the terms of settlement arrived between the parties in Misc.No.67/2020 which is the compromise terms arrived between the parties by modifying their own terms of settlement in MC.No.5168/2018. Hence, the J.Dr/mother is directed to comply the terms of the compromise arrived between them in Misc.No.67/2020 and to report compliance by 05.07.2025 and then directed the matter be called along with Misc.No.76/2024 by 05.07.2025. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/mother submits that the family court had passed the order by exceeding its jurisdiction. It is submitted that there is no such clause in the compromise decree that the children will come to India. It is submitted that considering the welfare of the children, the mother had to file a petition in USA. The family court without looking at the compromise decree entered into between the parties, had directed the petitioner/mother to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29486 WP No. 18585 of 2025 comply with the compromise decree, wherein the relief that is sought by the father is to get the three children to India. Learned counsel for the petitioner/mother submits that the boy is with the father, as he has been in the illegal custody of the father, as such she has filed a habeas corpus writ petition which is pending consideration before the Division Bench. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/father submits that one child is with him and other three children are in USA. It is very difficult for him to travel to USA leaving one child in India who is having some difficulties. It is submitted that it is agreed between the parties, that one year children will come to India and next another year the father will travel to USA. Contrary to that the wife failed to send the children to India. Now he is not able to travel to US leaving one child in India. It is submitted that considering all this the family court had rightly passed the order. 10. Heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The undisputed facts in this case are that the parties have entered into a compromise petition. Thereafter a modification petition is filed. In the preceding - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29486 WP No. 18585 of 2025 paragraphs this court has recorded the terms of the compromise. When it comes to the execution petition, what is sought by the father is that the family court has directed the J.Dr/mother to be present along with the children before the court and handover the custody to the decree holder. The execution petition is filed seeking execution of the compromise decree entered into between the parties. To file a petition seeking execution, first of all it is the burden on the decree holder to say what is the violation of the judgment and decree that is sought to be executed. As submitted by the learned counsel for the father, the violation is as per the understanding between both the parties, which is not part of the compromise decree, once mother and children have come to India and next year the father has travelled to USA, so the very next year it is turn of the mother to come to India, as she has failed to do so, the father has filed the execution petition. Whatever the submission and application that is filed by father is beyond the scope of the execution. The Family Court without even appreciating the terms of the mutual consent decree passed by the court, without even looking into anything, passed an order directing the mother to comply with the order. It is a settled - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29486 WP No. 18585 of 2025 law that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree. Now these kind of understandings between the parties are not executable. Even that aspect the court has not even gone into and entertaining these kind of execution petitions is without any basis and is most unwarranted. Accordingly, the objection with regard to the maintainability of the execution filed by the mother is upheld. 11. In the light of the above discussion, this court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is Allowed by setting aside the order passed on I.A.No.5 in Ex.P.181/2024 dated 19.04.2025. ii. Father is at liberty to file appropriate petition if the welfare of the minor is at stake. iii. All pending I.As., in the petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS,List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50