- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4298 WP No. 5196 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO.5196 OF 2023 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: MR. SAJJAD ALI KHAN S/O. LATE ABBAS ALI KHAN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.27 2ND 'A' MAIN ROAD AJMALAPPA LAYOUT KACHARAKANAHALLI BENGALURU-560 084 …PETITIONER (BY SRI MASKOOR HASHMI M. D., ADVOCATE FOR; SMT. SHAHIDA KHANAM J., ADVOCATED) AND: MRS. SEEMA SHERIFF W/O. SAJJAD ALI KHAN D/O. LATE SHERIFF USMAN MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.2659, 36TH A CROSS 28TH MAIN, 9TH BLOCK Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4298 WP No. 5196 of 2023 JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 069 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI ABDUL WAJID S. A., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE/MODIFY, THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.09.2022 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN G AND WC NO.22/2019 ON I.A.NO.II DATED 13.08.2019 UNDER THE ORIGINAL OF ANNEXURE-H AND ALLOW THE I.A. NO.II DATED 13/08/2019 IN G AND WC.NO.22/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL. PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, AT BENGALURU UNDER THE ORIGINAL OF ANNEXURE-E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4298 WP No. 5196 of 2023 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Maskoor Hashmi.M.D who represents Smt.Shahida Khanam.J, learned counsel on record for the petitioner as well as Sri.Abdul Wajid.S.A, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Seeking the Court to set aside or to modify the order passed by the Court of IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on I.A.No.II filed under Section 12 read with Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1956 in G & WC No.22/2019 dated 23.09.2022, this writ petition is filed. 3. For the sake of convenience of discussion the petitioner will herein after be referred to as the father, the respondent as the mother and their minor child Faizaan Alikhan as child. 4. In the proceedings that are pending before the Court of IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4298 WP No. 5196 of 2023 Bengaluru in G & WC No.22/2019, father filed an application seeking interim custody of the child during his stay in India, during the vacation of the child and while he stays at Saudi Arabia to be in touch with the child over phone with video call facility till disposal of the case. The Court through the impugned order granted interim custody of the child to the father for 3 days in Dasara vacation, 3 days in Christmas vacation and 6 days in summer vacation with a direction to the father to spend those days with the child at Bengaluru. Also permission was given to father to interact with the child over phone through video conference during free time of the child. 5. Arguing the matter, learned counsel who represents the father submits that father was working at Riyadh. Father is very affectionate towards his child and he intended to look after the welfare of the child and take care of all his necessities. Father tried to know about the child's progress in academic activities. When he tried to get information from school authorities, wife addressed a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4298 WP No. 5196 of 2023 letter to the school authorities not to provide any information to the father without the order of the Court or without her consent and thereby restrained him from knowing about the progress of his child. Learned counsel also states that whenever father took the custody of the child, his wife was continuously calling the child over phone and thereby disturbing the association between him and the child. Learned counsel submits that all the family members of his client resides at Tirupati and therefore, he intends to take the child to Tirupati or other places as per the wish of the child but the family Court restricted his association with the child only to Bengaluru which is unjustifiable. Learned counsel further submits that the Court through the impugned order did not permit father to stay with the child during night times. Learned counsel thereby seeks to set aside the impugned order. In this regard learned counsel placed reliance upon the Child Access and Custody Guidelines under Parenting Plan 2025 passed by the High Court of Calcutta. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4298 WP No. 5196 of 2023 6. The submission that is made by learned counsel who represents the wife is that husband used to reside at Riyadh when interlocutory application was filed. However, subsequently, he returned to India and he is residing at his own house in Bengaluru. He is continuously calling the child and the wife is allowing all conversations. Whenever husband wanted to take the child into custody as per the impugned order, wife is permitting without raising any objection. But though the order was passed in the year 2022 husband did not seek the custody except on few occasions. Learned counsel thereby states that the present writ petition is not maintainable. 7. Husband who filed this writ petition has clearly shown his residential particulars as No.27, 2nd A main road, Ajmalappa Layout, Kacharakanahalli, Bengaluru. Therefore, it is clear that the husband as of now resides at Bengaluru as submitted by learned counsel who represents the wife. Interim custody of the child was given to the husband for 3 days in Dasara vacation, 3 days in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4298 WP No. 5196 of 2023 Christmas vacation and 6 days in summer vacation. No where in the impugned order it is mentioned that the husband has to return the child on every day during that period to his wife. The order makes it clear that for all 24 hours in a day during that period, husband can have the custody. Therefore, the submission that is made by learned counsel who represents the husband that father has to return the child every day during the said period holds no water. The case filed under Guardians and Wards Act is still pending. During the pendency of the case, the Court, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, has passed the impugned order so as to protect the interest of both the parties. So far as denial of access to the school records is concerned, it is not the subject matter of this writ petition. As far as interim custody is concerned, the Court passed a reasoned order on hearing both the parties and further taking into consideration the paramount welfare of the child. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there are no - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4298 WP No. 5196 of 2023 grounds what so ever either to set aside the impugned order or to modify the same as sought for. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE NS CT:VC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31