- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35208 WP No. 15703 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION NO.15703 OF 2026 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SMT. SHAMEEN BANU W/O MOHAMMED ISRAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 31, K.K. ANNEXE QUARTERS, NEAR HIGH GROUNDS, BENGALURU - 560001 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVABHUSHAN S. HATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. MOHAMMED ISRAR, S/O LATE MR. MOHAMMED MUMTAZ, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 15, M.Z. MANZIL, 9TH CROSS, 1ST FLOOR, KHB LAYOUT, RSPS SIPRA PVT. LTD., R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 034. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION MODIFYING THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2026 ANNEXURE-A OF THE LEARNED V ADDL. FAMILY COURT BENGALURU ON IA NO. Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35208 WP No. 15703 of 2026 2 AND THEREBY GRANT INTERIM CUSTODY OF THE CHILD OF THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NAMED ISRAA FATHIMA TO THE PETITIONER, TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE G&WC NO. 402/2025 ANNEXURE-H. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 09.07.2026 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 writ petition is filed against the order of the Family Court in IA No.2 in G&WC No.402/2025 dated 07.04.2026. 2. Smt.Shameem Banu/wife filed a case for custody of the minor child and during the pendency of proceedings she sought for interim custody of the daughter Israa Fathima till the disposal of the petition. On 10.02.2026 respondent opposed the application by filing written objections. Their marriage was performed on 04.01.2019 and daughter was born on 20.05.2023. The Family Court considering the arguments of both sides granted visitation rights as follows: "Petitioner is allowed to visit her minor daughter Israa Fathima on every first and third Saturday from 11.30 a.m. to 01.30 p.m. at - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35208 WP No. 15703 of 2026 Children's Visitation Room, 4th Floor, Nyayadegula, Bengaluru, till the disposal of this petition." 3. Aggrieved by the said order, she preferred this Writ Petition. She mainly contended that she is working as a Clinical Psychologist and also Psychotherapist for Special Children. Respondent is working at a Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru and earning good salary, but he was doubting the fidelity of the petitioner at all times. The respondent or the people who knew were following her solely with an intention to find out with whom she has an affair and thus they were interfering with her work. Later, respondent believed that she had an affair and forcibly pushed her outside the house on 06.07.2025 by picking up fight and denied her entry into the house. As such, from then onwards she was denied access to the child. Brothers of the respondent confronted with her when she was with one of her patients, grabbed her phone and abused her in public and made comments regarding her character alleging infidelity. As such she gave complaint against them on 27.09.2025 as per 'Annexure-D'. She also stated that respondent used to leave the child with the tenants upstairs - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35208 WP No. 15703 of 2026 and there was Ipad/Note Pad of the petitioner through which petitioner's Whatsapp account was logged in. The said Ipad remained in the respondent's home for some time even after she was sent out of the home. At that time without consent of the petitioner, tenant and respondent colluded and sent several messages from petitioner's Whatsapp account to respondent stating that petitioner was tired with the child and the marriage. The said messages were used against her before the Trial Court. Subsequently she learnt that her phone number/Whatsapp account was hacked and messages were sent from the Ipad via her 'Whatsapp', as such she discontinued the old phone number and got new phone number. 4. The Trial Court relied upon the Whatsapp messages without any application under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023. and granted only visitation rights twice in a month for two hours and child is forgetting her and not even recognising her as she is permitted to meet the child only twice in a month. Child is only two years ten months and she is female child and she requires utmost need - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35208 WP No. 15703 of 2026 of love and affection. But the Family Court failed to consider the best interests of the child, which is mandate and purpose of the G&WC Act, 1890. Respondent stays with his aged mother and they are not equipped to take care of the female child less than three years. Therefore, she sought for modification of the order dated 07.04.2026 and requested the Court to grant interim custody of the child to her till the disposal of the G&WC case. 5. Heard the arguments of both sides. 6. There is no dispute regarding marriage and paternity. The main contention of the respondent/husband is that she was caught red-handed with Mr.Danial by representing that she is wife of the Mr.Danial and she is having extramarital relationship with him. On 27.09.2005 when he confronted with her and caught her at private residential three floor building, she brought neighbour's child and falsely claimed that she is taking tuition to child, but it was denied by them. Her conduct, lifestyle and moral surroundings are not condusive for the healthy upbringing of the minor child. Any abrupt disturbance of the custody would cause severe psychological and emotional - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35208 WP No. 15703 of 2026 trauma to the child. He further stated that petitioner failed to demonstrate any compelling or exceptional circumstances warranting removal of the minor child from his custody. He relied upon citation reported in ABC Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2015 (10) SCC1, in which it was held that 'the child is not a chattel or a bell to be shuttled or shunted from one person to another. Respondent's rude behaviour and short temper make her incapable of providing a safe, loving and nurturing environment. Removing the child from the custody of devoted father to place her with the mother who abandoned her would be antithetical to the child's welfare and would violate the very purpose of Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act'. 7. He further relied upon the text messages sent to him stating that 'the child is no more the daughter of the petitioner, she is fed up with her child, she does not love her any more and she does not want her child in her life'. He produced screen shots of the said text messages to the Court. Court considering both the aspects granted only visitation rights. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35208 WP No. 15703 of 2026 8. Petitioner herein contended that the said text messages are not accompanied by the Certificate under Section 63 of the BNS Act. But the Trial Court erroneously relied upon them. She further stated that her phone was hacked and the said messages were sent from her phone without her knowledge or consent. As such she discontinued her old phone number and the said fact is to be established by her in course of trial before the Family Court. She mainly contended that the child is aged below three years, as such she requires the mother's love and care. Admittedly, the child is residing with respondent from 06.07.2025. Respondent stated that she deserted him and the child voluntarily to pursue the career, whereas the petitioner stated that she was driven out of the house forcibly and denied access to the child. She filed a petition under Section 7(a) and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1980 r/w Section 7(G) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 on 23.10.2025 and filed I.A. for interim custody on the same day. 9. Even as per the contention of the petitioner, respondent's mother is staying with him and she is taking care of the child. Petitioner herein already filed G&WC case for - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35208 WP No. 15703 of 2026 custody of the minor child and it is still pending for evidence. As such the Family Court rightly granted visitation rights twice in a month at Children's Visitation Room and this Court finds no illegality in the said order. 10. In the result, writ petition is dismissed confirming the order of the Family Court. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57