- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29280-DB MFA No. 1063 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH 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.1063 OF 2026 (GW) BETWEEN: RAJEEV JOSHI, S/O SHRI MAHESH KUMAR JOSHI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO. 203, SRI EMERALD PARK, OUTER RING ROAD, BEHIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT, MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU - 560 037. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHARATH S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ARUN GOVINDRAJ., ADVOCATE) AND: GUNJAN JOSHI @ GUNJAN SHARMA, W/O SHRI RAJEEV JOSHI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO. 203, SRI EMERALD PARK, OUTER RING ROAD BEHIND WATER TREATMENT PLANT, MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU - 560 037. …RESPONDENT THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 47 (a) OF GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:07.11.2025 PASSED IN G AND WC NO. Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29280-DB MFA No. 1063 of 2026 82/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/S.7,10 AND 17 OF THE GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT, 1890. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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 is filed under Section 47(a) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, impugning the order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the Court of III Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in G&WC No.82/2024, filed by the appellant who happens to be the father of Master Vihaan, who was born on 10.09.2016 out of wedlock with the respondent. 2. The appellant wanted exclusive custody of the ward, who is said to be around 10 years old. The appellant and the respondent are living in the same house under one roof along with the child. The learned Family - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29280-DB MFA No. 1063 of 2026 Court has considered this fact that exclusive custody of the child to the father at this stage, cannot be granted when the parties are living together in the same house along with the child. 3. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Family Court. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3