- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46466 WP No. 31002 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 31002 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: MR. ANIL KUMAR SHET S S/O LATE. NAGESH SHET, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.4-9-853, NEAR B.G. SCHOOL, KALAKUNJ ROAD, MANGALURU-575003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AJAY PRABHU M., ADVOCATE) AND: MRS. RAMYA ANIL SHET @ MRS. NAGASHREE R W/O MR. ANIL KUMAR SHET S., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.1254, 9TH B MAIN, 6TH CROSS, SRINIVAS NAGAR, Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46466 WP No. 31002 of 2025 VTC BANSHANKARI, BANGALORE -560050. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RAMYA ANIL SHET @ NAGASHREE R –RESPONDENT PRESENT) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.07.2025 PASSED ON APPLICATIONS IN I.A.NO.XII FOR MODIFICATION AND 1.A.NO.XIII FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2024 IN G AND W.C.NO. 8 OF 2024 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, D.K., MANGALURU THEREBY DISMISSING BOTH THE APPLICATIONS ABOVE AND PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPLICATION FILED IN I.A.NO.XI FOR MODIFICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-A. CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE APPLICATION IN I.A.NO.XII FOR MODIFICATION AS PRAYED FOR AND I.A.NO.XIII FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED IN I.A.NO.XI FOR MODIFICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46466 WP No. 31002 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 27.09.2025 passed in G&WC.No.8/2024 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru, whereby the Family Court had directed the petitioner to submit his explanation in writing before the next date of hearing why he should not be detained in civil Jail for his failure to produce the children before the Court for chamber interaction in compliance to the order dated 23.08.2025. 2. When this matter came up before this Court on 05.11.2025, this Court had passed an order observing that counsel for the petitioner submits that when the children are not interested to come to the Family Court, he cannot compel them. He had also argued on the merits of the matter about the power/jurisdiction of the Court in passing the impugned order. This Court do not find any substance in both the submissions that are made by the counsel for the petitioner. When an order is passed by the Family Court in a G&WC matter, it is the duty of the party to comply with it. The petitioner/father had filed the petition seeking custody and he wants an order from the Family Court and at the same time he - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46466 WP No. 31002 of 2025 tells the court that he cannot compel the children to comply with the order. The petitioner cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold and that is nothing but the abuse of the process of the court. This Court had also made it clear that this Court is not inclined to decide whether the order dated 27.09.2025 is legal, valid or whether the Family Court has jurisdiction to do it. The fact remains is that there is non compliance of the order of the Family Court. Then this Court had directed the petitioner to take the children to the Family Court on 06.11.2025 at 05.00 p.m. for chamber interaction. If the petitioner takes the children to the Family Court on 06.11.2025 at 05.00 p.m., there shall be stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 27.09.2025. If the petitioner fails to appear before the Family Court along with the children, then the Family Court is at liberty to proceed with the case. 3. When the matter came up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the writ petition. The respondent/party-in-person who is present before this Court submits that she is objecting to the same and the visitation is not given to her. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46466 WP No. 31002 of 2025 4. The party-in-person/mother cannot object for withdrawal of this petition and the limited ground on which the petitioner is before this Court is questioning an order passed by the Court where the petitioner had failed to bring the children to the Court and the Family Court had directed the petitioner to submit his explanation. In that, the respondent cannot have any objection. If she is aggrieved by any of the action, the remedy is elsewhere. Hence, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG CT:bms List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8