- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27224-DB MFA No. 2075 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2075 OF 2026 (GW) BETWEEN: SRI. N KRISHNAMURTHY @ VIKKY, S/O M NANJUNDASWAMY CHETTIYAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, BALEPETE, KOLLEGALA PATNA, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT - 571 440. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHOWRI H R., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. M. MEENAKSHI, W/O VINOD, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT. NO.249, VIDYARANYAPURAM, SEWAGE FARM ROAD, EWS HOUSE, KANAKAGIRI, 8TH MAIN ROAD, WARD NO. 54, MYSURU CITY - 570 008. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.SREENIVASA M.Y., ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR RESPONDENT) Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27224-DB MFA No. 2075 of 2026 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 47 (a) OF GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:13.01.2026 PASSED IN G AND WC NO.20/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, REJECTING THE PETITION FILED U/S.7 AND 25 OF THE GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT, 1890. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present appeal has been filed under Section 47(c) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1980 impugning the judgment and decree dated 13.01.2026 in G and W.C.No.20/2024 passed by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru. 2. The petitioner/appellant is the father of Hithashree.K, born through respondent, the ex-wife of the appellant. The said child was born on 08.06.2019. The - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27224-DB MFA No. 2075 of 2026 marriage between the parents was dissolved on 09.02.2021. 3. The petitioner/appellant filed the petition under Section 7 and 25 of the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890, praying custody of the minor child, who is now 7 years of age. The Family Court vide impugned judgment and order framed the following two issues: "1) Whether the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds for custody of minor and allow the petition as prayed for? 2) What order?" 4. The learned Family Court vide impugned judgment and order has dismissed the case of the petitioner for custody, holding that the right of visitation of the petitioner/appellant is reserved but he can claim the same after the child attains the age of 11 years. However, at this stage, the petitioner/appellant would not be entitled to custody and visitation till the child attains the age of 11 years. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27224-DB MFA No. 2075 of 2026 5. We fail to understand the reasoning of the Family Court to arrive at the conclusion that till the child attains the age of 11 years, the father would not be entitled even to visit the child. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant has confined his submissions only seeking visitation rights and he is not seeking the custody of the child at present. He submits that the child requires love and affection of both the parents. After divorce the parties have remarried and having children from their second spouse. Hence, denying even the visitation right to the father till the child attains the age of 11 years defies any logic and reasoning. It would not be in the interest and welfare of the child, which is a paramount consideration, while deciding the custody of the minor child. He therefore, submits that the petitioner/appellant should be allowed to visit the child at least fortnightly to spend some time with her, to ensure the well being and welfare of the child, and the child should get love and affection of both the parents. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27224-DB MFA No. 2075 of 2026 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that child has not seen the father since 2019 that is, after her birth, and it would be difficult for the child to associate with the father at this stage, that too when she is only seven years of age. He therefore, submits that till the child develops the understanding i.e., upto the age of 11 years, the exclusive custody of the child should be made with the mother and the father should not be allowed even to visit the child. 8. We have considered the submissions. The appellant earlier could not visit the child because of the respondent herself, as she never allowed the petitioner/appellant to visit the child. The parties had strained relationship soon after the marriage and under the facts and circumstances, the petitioner/appellant could not visit the child. No one can deny that the children require love and affection of both the parents. In the present case, both parents have remarried and have children from their second spouses. Therefore, there are - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27224-DB MFA No. 2075 of 2026 more compelling reasons that the petitioner should be allowed to visit the child to get the child associated and connected with him, the father. Under these circumstances we dispose of this appeal on the following terms: 1. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Family Court is set-aside. 2. The appellant shall have visitation right fortnightly on Saturday/Sunday as per the convenience for 4-6 hours and the appellant shall take the child from the residence of the respondent and after 4-6 hours hand over the child back to the respondent. 3. The petitioner/appellant shall inform the respondent in advance about his visit and taking the child out for 4-6 hours on Saturday/Sunday fortnightly. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27224-DB MFA No. 2075 of 2026 4. Besides the visitation rights fortnightly, on Saturday/Sunday, the appellant shall also visit the child on festivals, birthdays, etc., 5. The petitioner/appellant shall always accompany with the mother/sister while visiting the child and the child shall be in the company of the petitioner/appellant and his mother/sister as directed above. 6. The petitioner/appellant shall also continue to pay Rs.20,000/- for meeting the expenses for upbringing the child including her education for the time being. 7. The respondent shall provide bank account details to the appellant for remitting Rs.20,000/- every month on or before 7th of every month. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27224-DB MFA No. 2075 of 2026 This order shall remain in force for six months. If after six months, the parties can approach this Court for modification if any, required to ensure welfare and well being of the child. In view of the disposal of the appeal, all/any pending application/s also stand disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7 ct-vn