- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25692 WP No. 358 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 358 OF 2024 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SHWETABH SAHAY AGED 39 YEARS, S/O PRAKASH SAHAY, RESIDING AT 6/9, LANTANA STREET, VATIKA CITY, SECTOR - 49 GURGAON – 122 018 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ROHAN KOTHARI AND SRI.SATVIK UPADHYA, ADVOCATES) AND: AMRITA SINHA AGED 38 YEARS, W/O SHWETABH SAHAY, RESIDING AT VILLA 56, CONCORDE CUPERTINO, BEGUR HOBLI, NEELADRI ROAD, KARUNA ROAD, OPPO. TO FABINDIA, ELECTRONIC CITY, PHASE -I BANGALORE 560 100 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.NITHIN A.M., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTION MODIFYING THE ORDER DATED: 10.11.2023 , PASSED IN G AND WC NO. 68/23 BY THE HONBLE II ADDL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-A) TO THE EXTENT OF THAT THE PETITIONER IS PROVIDED INTERIM UNSUPERVISED CUSTODY OF THE PARTIES MINOR DAUGHTER, MISS SWADHA SAHAY, FOR EVERY WEEKEND AND FOR 50 PERCENT OF SCHOOL HOLIDAYS. 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:25692 WP No. 358 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER This Court by order dated 07.07.2025 had issued bailable warrants against the mother and directed the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, to ensure that the mother and the daughter are produced before this Court on 09.07.2025 at 10:30 a.m. At 10:30 a.m., it was informed by the Police that the mother has informed that she will come and appear before the Court. But as she was not present, this Court had directed the officers to ensure that the mother is present before this Court. At 02:30 p.m., the mother is present before the Court. 2. It is submitted by the mother that as stated in the report by the Child Protection Officer, the mother's phone was not switched off and she has not received any communication from NIMHANS and there is no deliberate violation on the part of the mother. It is submitted that at all times she is ready and willing to abide by the orders of the Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/father has placed the Memorandum of Settlement between the parties dated 09.07.2025 before this Court, whereby the parties have - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25692 WP No. 358 of 2024 amicably settled all disputes including the custody, visitation and other litigation pending between the parties. It is submitted that in the light of the Memorandum of Settlement, no further orders are required to be passed in this case and in the light of the same, they will be filing appropriate petitions before the appropriate Court to withdraw the cases. 4. In the order dated 26.06.2025, this Court had referred to the letter dated 16.06.2025 forwarded by the District Child Protection Officer, District Child Protection Unit, Bangalore West, Anekal Taluk, which reads thus: “In reference to the High Court order dated 05.06.2025, officials from our office visited Neeladri Road, Electronics City Phase 1, on 16.06.2025 (Monday) to take the child, Swadha Sahay, to NIMHANS as directed by the Hon'ble Court. However, upon arrival, Mrs. Amrita Sinha (Respondent) was uncooperative. Her counsel, Mr. Nithin, informed our officers that neither the mother nor the child would accompany the officials, stating that the High Court order was not acceptable to them. Despite our officers' efforts to explain the necessity to comply with the Court's directions, the Respondent and her counsel refused cooperation, thereby obstructing the execution of the order.” 5. This Court had discussed about the conduct of the advocate for the respondent/mother basing on the report placed by the Child Protection Officer and asked him to file an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25692 WP No. 358 of 2024 affidavit by 04.07.2025. On the last occasion, when the matter came up, it was submitted that the affidavit is ready and he will file it. Today, the affidavit is placed before this Court, wherein it is stated that at any point of time he has never stated that the order of the Court is not acceptable to him. However, at paragraph No.8 of the affidavit, it is stated that "if the District Child Protection Officer or their representative would have asked me about the order dated 15.06.2025, since the same was to be challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court the same was accordingly challenged by way of SLP.No.17006/2025, the same would have been intimated. It cannot be construed that the respondent and myself are not accepting the order of this Court and are in obstruction of executing the order of this Court. I have only been truthful to this Court and to any other person assigned by Hon'ble Court with regard to this writ petition." In the same affidavit at paragraph No.12, it is stated that "the observations made by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 26.05.2025 be striked off or recalled for the same shall reflect/construed negatively as against me and the respondent. Further, e-mail dated 05.07.2025 by the advocate for the petitioner Mr.Rohan Kothari from the mail ID, rohan.kothari@chambersrk.com also is a proof of the fact that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25692 WP No. 358 of 2024 the observations made by this Hon'ble Court is being used to spread false narratives and to build negative opinion as against me and hence, it is prayed as above" i.e., the same may be striked off. 6. When the matter is settled between the parties, generally, this Court will not go into any of the aspects and the Court would be restricting in recording the settlement that is arrived at between the parties. In this case, this Court had passed voluminous orders running into several pages. If the party is not satisfied with the order passed by the Court, the parties are always at liberty to question the said order. As long as the said order is not questioned and as long as the said order is not interfered by the Appellate Court, it is the duty of the party to implement the orders of the Court. As far as the mother is concerned, she has violated the orders of the Court from time to time and the advocates who have appeared from time to time on behalf of the mother have submitted before the Court that they are not aware of the whereabouts of the mother and they still continue to represent the mother before this Court. Advocate is an officer of the Court first and foremost and he has every responsibility to be fair to the Court and later - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25692 WP No. 358 of 2024 he is the advocate to his client. No advocate can forget this aspect and it is very important that the advocate should not identify himself and get into the shoes of the client. Then it will be very difficult for the advocates to argue the cases and it will be difficult for the Courts to give timely justice to the clients. 7. In the letter of the Child Protection Officer, it is stated that the advocate for the mother has stated that they will not comply with the order of the Court. Now it is denied by the advocate by stating that as they have to prefer appeal they would have been intimated. This sentence speaks volumes. The Child Protection Officer has nothing against the advocate or the client. As per the orders passed by this Court, they have placed a report before this Court. The Child Protection Officer has no reason to say that the advocate has stated that they will not comply with the order as it is not acceptable to them. It is definitely not a pleasant thing for this Court to record all these things. The success of the justice delivery system is mainly based on the healthy relation between the Bench and the Bar. In several orders that are passed by this Court, had recorded what has transpired in this case. Now, when the Court asks the advocate to file an affidavit, in the affidavit it is stated that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25692 WP No. 358 of 2024 there is a remark which needs to be striked off. This Court finds no reason to do it. Every sentence that is stated in the said order is passed basing on what has transpired in the Court. The advocate should have been more vigilant before doing anything or making any submissions before the Court. Considering the interest of the advocate, this Court do not want to take this issue any further or pass any other order. 8. In the light of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 09.07.2025 filed before this Court, no further orders required to be passed. Hence, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the light of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 09.07.2025. ii. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15