- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37851 WP No. 26499 of 2025 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. 26499 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: PUNEETH S., S/O SHANKAR V., AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.304, 6TH A CROSS ROAD 2ND BLOCK, SRINIVASNAGAR BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE BANGALORE -560 050 …PETITIONER (BY SMT.DEEPA J., ADVOCATE) AND: SANDHYA D/O MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS NO. 63, SANNIDHI RD 1ST BLOCK, NR COLONY BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU KARNATAKA- 560 004 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.G.MUNISWAMY GOWDA, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE -A THE ORDER DATED 09.04.2025 ON IA NO.18 PASSED BY THE VI ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT BENGALURU IN G AND WC NO. 148/2023. 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:37851 WP No. 26499 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.18 in G & WC. No.148/2023 dated 09.04.2025 by the VI Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the Family Court had dismissed an application filed by the father seeking 50% interim custody of the minor child, the father is before this Court. 2. The parties are referred to as father and mother for the sake of convenience. 3. It is the case that the G&WC. petition is filed in the year 2023. It is the case of the father that the mother has forcefully took the child to the house and did not allow the father. In W.P.No.26399/2024 on 11.06.2025, this Court had passed an order that on 13.06.2025, after the school hours, the father can pick up the child from the school and drop the child back on 14.06.2025 evening at 5.00 p.m. Any inconvenience to the boy shall be informed to the mother and if the boy insists, he shall be sent back to the mother. The earlier order with regard to maintenance, the father shall continue to pay. Then finally an order was passed on 02.07.2025 wherein both the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37851 WP No. 26499 of 2025 writ petitions that are filed by the father and the mother were considered and the order of maintenance granted by the Family Court is reduced from an amount of Rs.20,000/- to 10,000/- per month and the order passed by the Family Court is modified and this Court had observed that in the earlier round of litigation also, this Court had passed orders granting the visitation to the father and there is no complaint that the boy is not comfortable with the father. Even when earlier Bench interacted with parents and also the boy, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had observed that the boy is comfortable with the father and it is also an admitted fact that both of them are staying nearby. In those circumstances, there cannot be an objection to the mother in granting overnight custody to the father and accordingly, this Court had upheld the order that is passed by the Family Court whereby the father had been granted the interim custody of the minor son for two days i.e., twice in a month i.e., on every first Saturday and Sunday and on third Saturday and Sunday. 4. The application was filed even much before the writ petition is pending before this Court. The Family Court had - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37851 WP No. 26499 of 2025 passed the impugned order on 09.04.2025 and the order in the writ petition is passed by this Court on 02.07.2025. The interim arrangements that are made by the Court are during the pendency of the petition considering the welfare of the child and also the interest of both the father and the child. The purpose of interim application is not to every now and then coming up with an application because the party has a right to file the application. Now, when this Court had passed an order on 02.07.2025 and confirmed the order passed by the Family Court wherein the overnight custody is granted twice in a month i.e., on every first Saturday and Sunday and on third Saturday and Sunday. Now, at this stage for a boy of 4 years granting 50% custody to the father will not arise. The visitation, the custody of the child has to be taken slowly and one after the other these kinds of applications cannot be filed. When the father and the mother are working and every alternative week the father is having the overnight custody and this Court is not able to understand what is the necessity of filing an application seeking 50% of the custody of the child or rather a joint parenting for a boy, who is aged about 4 years. In those circumstances, at this point of time, this Court do not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37851 WP No. 26499 of 2025 find any reasons to grant 50% of the custody to the father. However, as per the earlier order dated 02.07.2025, the father is having overnight custody for two days i.e., on every first Saturday and Sunday, third Saturday and Sunday. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The father is entitled to have the custody of the child on 2nd Saturday and 4th Saturday between 10.00 am. and 4.00 pm. ii. The father can have the video call access on Wednesdays between 5.00 pm and 6.00 pm. iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. iv. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26