- 1 - WP No. 1345 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.1345 OF 2026 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SMT. APARNA BANERJEE AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A WING 3,FLAT 104, GROUND FLOOR, SHRIRAM SUMMIT, GOLLHALLI ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE 1 BENGALURU-560 100. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. OMAR SHARIFF.,ADVOCATE) AND: MR. PARTH SARATHY CHAKRABORTY, AGED ABOUT 41YEARS R/A ROW HOUSE NO Q1/4 SUBASHREE WOODS, KUNAL ICON ROAD, PIMPLE SAUDAGAR, PUNE MAHARASHTRA -411 027. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHWETHA NAYAK N.,ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2025 PASSED IN I.A.NO.1 IN G AND WC NO.101/2025 BY THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL.PERMIT THE MINOR CHILD TO CONTINUE TO RESIDE WITH THE PETITIONER AT BENGALURU DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE PROCEEDINGS. - 2 - WP No. 1345 of 2026 THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 18.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner- mother calling in question the impugned order dated 11.12.2025 passed in I.A.No.1 in G & WC No.101/2025 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Family Court’), and seeking a direction to permit the minor child to continue to reside with her at Bengaluru during the pendency of the proceedings. 2. The petitioner herein/wife is the respondent before the Family Court and the respondent herein/husband is the petitioner before the Family Court. 3. For convenience of reference, the parties herein are referred as per their rankings before this Court. - 3 - WP No. 1345 of 2026 4. The brief facts of the case are that:- The petitioner is the mother and natural guardian of the minor child, Master Vedant Parthasarthy, aged about 9½ years, who has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), requiring continuous structured therapies, remedial education and a stable and supportive environment. It is stated that the petitioner is employed as a Web Developer at Mphasis, Bengaluru, and is residing with her elderly parents, who are dependent upon her. It is further stated that the minor child has been residing with the petitioner at Bengaluru and is undergoing occupational therapy, speech therapy, behavioural interventions and remedial education suited to his condition. 5. The petitioner asserts that the child has been admitted to a special-needs-friendly school in Bengaluru and that the requisite fees have been paid, ensuring continuity of education and therapeutic intervention. It is further stated that she has been bearing all expenses relating to the minor child, including medical, therapeutic - 4 - WP No. 1345 of 2026 and educational expenses, and has produced bills and receipts for the period from 2019 to 2023. It is also alleged that the respondent has a history of physical violence, supported by FIR, medical records and photographs. 6. The Family Court, upon consideration of the pleadings, framed the point as to whether the petitioner therein had made out grounds for restoration of educational continuity and temporary custody. By order dated 11.12.2025, the said point was answered partly in the affirmative. The Family Court observed that the marriage between the parties stood dissolved by consent decree dated 07.06.2023 and that the minor child was in the custody of the mother subject to joint decision- making regarding education and medical matters. It was further held that the mother had removed the child from Pune and started residing in to Bengaluru without consulting the father and in violation of the settlement terms. The Family Court also observed that the - 5 - WP No. 1345 of 2026 allegations of cruelty and counter-allegations require trial and cannot be adjudicated at the interim stage. 7. The Family Court further held that the documents produced by the mother did not establish any superior educational or medical advantage in Bengaluru and that the relocation lacked cogent justification, thereby affecting the welfare of the minor child. Accordingly, exercising powers under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the Family Court directed restoration of the minor child to Asha International School at Pune. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the respondent filed G & WC No.101/2025 along with I.A.No.1 seeking interim relocation of the minor child to Pune and restoration of schooling at Asha International School, Pune, which follows a CBSE curriculum and, according to the petitioner, is unsuitable for a child with ASD requiring individualised and needs-based intervention. - 6 - WP No. 1345 of 2026 9. The petitioner filed detailed objections contending that the minor child’s settled education, ongoing therapies and emotional stability in Bengaluru would be severely disrupted by relocation, and that continuity of specialised care is essential. It is further contended that she has been the primary caregiver since birth and that relocation would jeopardise not only the child’s welfare but also her employment and her ability to care for her dependent elderly parents. 10. It is also contended that the impugned order was passed without conducting any independent enquiry, without interacting with the child and without recording findings as to how relocation would advance the welfare of the minor child. Further, the Family Court has violated the paramount welfare principle under Sections 7, 13 and 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, failed to consider the special-needs status of the child, mechanically relied on observations in contempt proceedings, ignored material evidence regarding - 7 - WP No. 1345 of 2026 schooling and therapies in Bengaluru, and exceeded its jurisdiction by granting final relief at an interim stage. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent–father would support the impugned order and contend that the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a consent decree dated 07.06.2023 in M.C.No.377/2020, wherein custody of the minor child was granted to the mother subject to a stipulation that major decisions relating to education and medical care shall be taken with mutual consent. It is contended that the petitioner unilaterally removed the child from Pune to Bengaluru in violation of the said consent decree, thereby disrupting the child’s educational continuity. The respondent has relied upon various documents including orders in CCC No.56/2025, the consent decree, child’s progress reports, ex-parte orders, medical records, receipts, school applications, chats and travel records. 12. Heard earned counsel appearing on either side. - 8 - WP No. 1345 of 2026 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. 14. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the consent decree dated 07.06.2023 governs the rights and obligations of the parties and specifically mandates that major decisions relating to education and medical care of the minor child shall be taken with mutual consent. Material placed on record prima facie indicates that the petitioner–mother relocated the minor child from Pune to Bengaluru without obtaining the consent of the respondent–father. Such unilateral action in matters concerning education is contrary to the binding terms of the consent decree and is a relevant factor in assessing interim arrangements. 15. The contention of the petitioner that the relocation was in the best interest of the minor child, particularly having regard to his diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder, has been considered. While it is true - 9 - WP No. 1345 of 2026 that a child with ASD requires continuity, structured support and specialised interventions, the material placed before the Family Court has been evaluated and a finding has been recorded that no cogent evidence was produced to demonstrate that the facilities available in Bengaluru are of such a nature that continuation of the child’s education at Pune would be detrimental to his welfare. At this interlocutory stage, in the absence of clear prima facie material establishing comparative disadvantage, this Court does not find the impugned order to be perverse. 16. It is also relevant to note that the direction issued by the Family Court is essentially to restore the position consistent with the consent decree and the prior educational arrangement of the minor child. The question as to which arrangement would ultimately subserve the best interest of the child, particularly in light of his special needs, is a matter that requires detailed evidence and expert assessment, which can only be undertaken during the course of trial. - 10 - WP No. 1345 of 2026 17. The submission that the impugned order has been passed without interacting with the child or conducting an elaborate enquiry cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. The order under challenge is an interim order passed under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and at such stage, the Family Court is required to form a prima facie view on the basis of the material available on record. Whether interaction with the child is necessary would depend on the facts of each case, and non-interaction, by itself, does not vitiate the order in the absence of demonstrated prejudice. 18. Insofar as the allegations of domestic violence are concerned, the same are supported by certain documents; however, the Family Court has rightly observed that such allegations and the counter- allegations require adjudication upon full-fledged evidence. At this stage, no material is placed to demonstrate that the said allegations have a direct and - 11 - WP No. 1345 of 2026 immediate bearing necessitating deviation from the agreed framework governing educational decisions. 19. This Court also takes note of the evolving framework relating to child custody and access, including the concept of a Parenting Plan, which emphasizes joint decision-making, advance notice in case of relocation and cooperative parenting in the best interest of the child. A Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.24360/2023 by order dated 11.12.2025, has directed that such guidelines, as adopted by the Calcutta High Court, be circulated and applied by the Family Courts in the State until appropriate rules are framed. Though not statutory in nature, the said guidelines provide persuasive guidance in matters of parental responsibility. 20. In the present case, the unilateral relocation of the minor child without prior notice or consent is not in consonance with the spirit of shared parental responsibility, as recognized both in the consent decree and in the said guiding principles. The Family Court has, therefore, adopted an approach aimed at restoring - 12 - WP No. 1345 of 2026 educational continuity within the framework earlier agreed upon between the parties. 21. The paramount consideration remains the welfare of the minor child. At the interlocutory stage, the Family Court has balanced the competing considerations and has taken a view that restoration of the earlier educational arrangement would subserve the child’s immediate welfare, leaving all broader issues to be determined upon trial. The said view cannot be said to be arbitrary, capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 22. It is made clear that all observations made herein are only for the purpose of adjudication of the present writ petition and shall not influence the merits of the case pending before the Family Court, which shall decide the matter independently on the basis of evidence. - 13 - WP No. 1345 of 2026 23. In view of the above, this Court proceed to pass the following:- ORDER (i) The writ petition stands dismissed. (ii) All contentions of the parties are kept open to be adjudicated in G & WC No.101/2025. (iii) The Family Court shall endeavour to dispose of the said proceedings expeditiously, in accordance with law. Pending IAs, if any, shall stand disposed of. SD/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV