- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34581 WP No. 20509 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION NO. 20509 OF 2026 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SIDDHARTH CHHOTTRAY S/O SOUMYAKANTA CHHOTTRAY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS TOWER 6 FLAT NO.61002 NIKOO HOMES 1 THANISANDRA BENGALURU-560064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. ABHILASH RAJU., ADVOCATE) AND: AKANKSHA MOHANTY W/O SIDDHARTH CHHOTTRAY AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS G1 MANIPAL VISTAS APARTMENTS VASANTH NAGAR BENGALURU-560051 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ARUN GOVINDRAJ., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMON ORDER DATED 03.07.2026 PASSED BY THE Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34581 WP No. 20509 of 2026 LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, ON I.A. NO.16 FILED UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT, 1890 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AND I.A. NO.17 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, IN G AND W.C. NO.50/2025, PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE- A AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 08.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV ORDER This petition is filed against the order dated 03.07.2026 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, on I.A. Nos. XVI and XVII in G & WC No.50 of 2025. The Family Court permitted the respondent-mother to take her minor son aged 3 years 11 months to United States of America from 10.07.2026 to 01.08.2026. The petitioner-father herein expressed his apprehension that his wife may not come back from USA. The Family court directed the wife and her parents who are accompanying her to file an affidavit to give an undertaking - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34581 WP No. 20509 of 2026 that they will come back to Bangalore with a minor child on 01.08.2026 and their visit to USA is only temporary. It was also directed that the petitioner-husband will have the visitation rights through video calls as per Class 5 and further they were directed to surrender the passport of the child before the court in Bangalore on 01.08.2026. 2. I.A. No.16 is filed by the respondent-mother permitting her to take the minor child to USA and I.A. No.17 is filed directing the release of passport of the minor child from the custody of the Court with certain conditions. The Family court posted G & WC No.50 of 2025 for hearing of the father on 20.03.2026. I.A. Nos.14 and 15 is filed seeking permission to take the minor child to Singapore and for release of the passport. As the petitioner-father filed detailed objections, she has withdrawn and I.A. Nos.14 and 15 were rejected as not surviving for consideration. 3. Again the respondent-mother filed an advance petition on 08.06.2026 and filed I.A. Nos.16 and 17 for the same reason to travel to USA and mainly contented that the minor - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34581 WP No. 20509 of 2026 child be permitted to be taken away from the jurisdiction of the Indian courts for a temporary period of nearly 20 days and thus, he apprehends the risk of permanently losing the access to the minor child. He filed M.C. No. 750 of 2025 on 04.02.2025 for restitution of conjugal rights. G & WC 50 of 2025 for permanent custody of the minor child aged 3 years. Respondent-mother filed M.C. No. 873 of 2025 for divorce. Visitation rights are granted to the petitioner-father in Misc. No.36/2025 on every first and third Saturday between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. But his respondent-mother violated the order and missed over 10 visitations. As such, he filed Execution Petition No.246 of 2025 dated 13.06.2025 for enforcement of the order. In I.A. No.2 filed by the petitioner-father, an order dated 24.11.2025 was passed by the Family court restraining the respondent-mother from taking the minor child outside the country during the pendency of the present proceedings without express permission of the court. The family Court also considered I.A. Nos. 3 and 5 filed by petitioner and respondent respectively, and directed that petitioner-father shall have supervisory visitation rights on every first and third Saturday - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34581 WP No. 20509 of 2026 between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. in the visitation room of the Family Court. The respondent-mother filed I.A. No. 6 seeking unilateral permission to apply for visa and complete formalities for issuance of US B, B2 tourist visa for the minor child. As such, the petitioner-father filed I.A. No.7 for a direction to deposit the passport of the minor child before the court. The Family Court permitted the respondent-mother to complete the visa formalities of the minor child and also directed to deposit the passport of the minor child before the court. It is stated that permission is granted under I.A.No.6 based on the representation of the respondent, that “tourist visa was not to take the child immediately abroad”. He was permitted to meet the minor child only for 2 days in a month for 3 hours on each day as such he was unable to maintain regular interaction and continuity in the emotional bond with the minor child, he filed I.A. No. 8 seeking virtual visitation through video calls for a duration of 1 hour at a fixed time and I.A. No. 9 for modification of the visitation rights granted on 24.11.2025 by permitting supervised visitation on every Saturday instead of restricting the same to first and third Saturdays. In response, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34581 WP No. 20509 of 2026 I.A. No.10 is filed by the respondent-mother for direction to refer petitioner to psychiatric evaluation agency, I.A. No.11 is filed to recall the visitation orders dated 24.11.2025, I.A. No.12 is filed for cancellation of the visitation rights of the petitioner and I.A. No.13 is filed for regularisation of the visitation by restraining the interference of the third parties especially respondent's parents. 4. The family Court dismissed I.A. No.9, allowed I.A. No.10, Partly allowed I.A. Nos.11 and 13 and observed as follows: “the visitation room, which is the only secure place available for facilitating visitation in view of the serious allegations in this case, will not be available on second Saturdays,” and further held that “the Respondent’s contention that the current bi-monthly visits are already disruptive to the child’s routine and leave him fatigued cannot be lightly dismissed,” and that “subjecting the child to this routine every single week, especially when the interactions are fraught with tension, does not prima facie appear to be conducive to his well-being.” 5. Against the order of the Family Court passed in I.A. Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 13 dated 04.04.2026, the petitioner- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34581 WP No. 20509 of 2026 husband filed W.P. No.17141 of 2026 and it is pending for consideration before this Court. It is stated during pendency of I.A. Nos.16 and 17, respondent-mother filed an affidavit of undertaking dated 23.06.26 stating that she is required to travel to US only for the purpose of attending a collaborative workshop conducted by her employer at Chicago on 23.07.2026 and 24.07.2026 and the travel is temporary, and it will not involve any relocation of either herself or her child outside India, and her parents are also accompanying her to assist in taking care of the child and she ensured return of the child to India on 01.08.2026. The said affidavit of undertaking was accepted and was relied upon by the Family Court. The petitioner-father also filed I.A. No.18 seeking permission to celebrate the birthday of the child for a period of 2 hours and it is posted for objections of the respondent on 07.07.2026. It is further stated that the conditions imposed by the family Court in detail will not provide any effective remedy in case the respondent-mother failed to return with the minor child. The respondent-mother advanced the proceedings from 07.07.2026 to 04.07.2026 without any information and filed the flight - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34581 WP No. 20509 of 2026 tickets, the statements and the passport of the minor child is also released and also handed over to the respondent-mother on 04.07.2026. The passport was released from the judicial custody without affording meaningful opportunity to him. He also produced Whats-app conversations vide memo dated 29.06.2026 in which respondent-mother has stated as follows : “If you decide and with God’s grace get to go to Canada, I will go with you.” 6. The Family Court has not recorded any findings on the said memo. The FIR in Crime No. 0029/2025 is registered at Kothanur police station against respondent-mother and her father for unauthorized procurement, possession and production of petitioner's confidential medical records before Family court in M.C. No.873 of 2025 and it is pending for consideration. 7. The respondent-mother is participating in a collaborative workshop on invitation and it was not stated that her physical presence is mandatory. But she is taking away the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34581 WP No. 20509 of 2026 child for 23 days from the jurisdiction of this court. Respondent-mother, on earlier occasions, undertaken official travel outside Bangalore for employment related commitments while leaving the child in the care of petitioner-father. She filed her travel tickets for 23 days though the workshop is confined only on 23.07.2026 and 24.07.2026. She sought permission to take the child outside India from 10.07.2026 to 01.08.2026 for nearly 23 days. The petitioner-father also stated that unless immediate intervention is granted by this court, respondent- mother may remove the minor child beyond the territorial jurisdiction of India and he can’t have an effective or efficacious remedy to secure the return of the child or to preserve his relationship and access to the son. It is contended that the order of the Family Court patently suffers from non application of mind and ignoring of relevant considerations. He further stated that welfare of the child cannot be equated with respondent-mother professional commitments and questioned as to how they propose to foreign travel advances welfare, stability and best interest of the child, aged 3 years and 11 months. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34581 WP No. 20509 of 2026 8. It is further stated that respondent-mother is taking her parents along with her and it is a major cause of concern. It is further stated that family court has not assessed as to whether the proposed travel was mandatory and he was not given a reasonable opportunity to verify the genuineness of the same. The family Court could have not considered the fact that whether the minor child could remain in India under an appropriate arrangement during intervening period. 9. I.A. No.18 filed by petitioner-father seeking two hours of visitation of the minor child on occasion of child's birthday and it is also pending consideration and thus requested this Court to grant interim protection directing respondent-mother to re-deposit the passport of the minor child and restraining her from taking the minor child outside the territory of India as he will suffer grave irreversible and irreparable prejudice, and thus, requested to quash the common order dated 03.07.2026 in IA No. 16 and IA No. 17 in G & WC No.50 of 2025. 10. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34581 WP No. 20509 of 2026 11. There is no dispute regarding the marriage and paternity. The minor child was born on 01.08.2022. He is aged 3 years 11 months as on today. It seems they have filed applications for divorce and restitution of conjugal rights in the year 2025. Therefore, it seems that the parties are not residing together for the last 2 years and the minor child is with the respondent-mother, who is working as Senior Manager in M/s. Baker Tilly One India LLP Ltd. She has stated that she is required to attend a collaborative workshop With her Learning and Development (L&D) Leadership team at Baker Tilly Office, Chicago, on 23.07.2026 and 24.07.2026 and her presence is required on 14.07.2026 for attending business meetings. She stated that the said meetings are helpful for advancing her career and also helps her an opportunity to interact with the leadership teams from different parts of the world. 12. The petitioner-father stated that his parents are residing with him and they can take care of the child for a period of 23 days when the respondent-mother is outside the country. His main apprehension is that respondent is taking the minor child along with her to USA and also taking her parents - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34581 WP No. 20509 of 2026 and she may not relocate to India after 23 days. It is further contended that if at all she fails to comply the conditions imposed by the family court, he will not have any efficacious remedy to get back the child. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent-mother relied upon the judgment in the case of Vikram Vir Vohra vs. Shalini Bhalla decided on 25.03.2010 reported in 2010(4) SCC 409 in which it was held as follows: “18. Now coming to the question of the child being taken to Australia and the consequent variations in the visitation rights of the father, this Court finds that the respondent mother is getting a better job opportunity in Australia. Her autonomy on her personhood cannot be curtailed by Court on the ground of a prior order of custody of the child. Every person has a right to develop his or her potential. In fact a right to development is a basic human right. The respondent- mother cannot be asked to choose between her child and her career. It is clear that the child is very dear to her and she will spare no pains to ensure that the child gets proper education and training in order to develop his faculties and ultimately to become a good citizen. If the custody of the child is denied to her, she may not be able to pursue her career in Australia and that may not be conducive either to the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34581 WP No. 20509 of 2026 development of her career or to the future prospects of the child. Separating the child from his mother will be disastrous to both.” 14. The respondent-mother is also working in a reputed institution and she got an opportunity to attend collaborative workshop and she stated that it helps her in advancing her career. As such, she incurred huge amounts towards travel expenses and she is also taking her parents along with her, so that they can take care of the minor child and she can attend the business meetings and workshops. She filed relevant documents to that effect before the Family Court. 15. As the petitioner-father had an apprehension, the respondent-mother and her parents also gave an undertaking stating that they will return back after 23 days and will deposit the passport of the minor child again before the family Court. Still, the petitioner is not convinced and requested this court to quash the order of the Family Court. 16. In I.A. Nos.16 and 17, dated 03.07.2026, the family Court has considered all the aspects and also dealt with other I.As. in detail and imposed so many conditions to satisfy the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34581 WP No. 20509 of 2026 petitioner-husband and granted permission to respondent- mother to take the minor child from the jurisdiction of Indian Court to USA only for a temporary period of 23 days. Thus, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said order of the Family. So far the Family Court has granted only supervisory visitation rights to the petitioner-father. Considering the age of the child and also the fact that the child is residing with the respondent-mother since more than 2 years, it is not proper for this Court to grant the custody of the child to the petitioner- father for a period of 23 days in the absence of his mother. 17. Therefore, this Court finds that there are no merits in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed confirming the order passed by the Family Court. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1