Writ Petition No. 5115 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8871 WP No. 5115 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5115 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SAMA ADIL, DAUGHTER OF SAR ADIL, AGED 41 YEARS NO.305, PRESTIGE SILVER OAK, ECC ROAD, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE - 560 066. (BY SRI IAN ISIDORE PRAKASH LEWIS, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: NOOR ALI, SON OF ISHAQ OOMER, AGED 43 YEARS, NO.2, ISPAHANI HOUSE, NO.3, MYRTLE LANE, RICHMOND TOWN, BANGALORE - 560 025.
Legal Reasoning
all grounds that she has now putforth before this Court in this petition before the miscellaneous case, which would have to be dealt with on its own merits rather than this Court dealing with, whether the contempt is committed or not, which is beyond the scope of the proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as no such order is passed as of now by this Court, and it is not brought to my notice with regard to any illegality in the application being registered as a separate miscellaneous case. Under the circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the petition filed by the petitioner-mother. 7. Accordingly, I pass the following:
Arguments
(BY SRI VIREN MICHAEL PERES, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE ANNXEXURE-A-IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.01.2025 (IMPUGNED ORDER) PASSED BY II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT IN THE IA FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 45 OF THE GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT IN G AND WC NO.53/2021. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8871 WP No. 5115 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER The petitioner-mother, who is the respondent in the child custody petition G and WC No.53/2021, is before this Court being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06.01.2025 passed on I.A. filed under Section 45 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (for short, 'the Act') by II ASCJ, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. 2. The respondent-father initiated a child custody petition for custodian visitation rights of the minor child in G and WC No.53/2021 against the petitioner-mother. In the said custody petition, an interim order came to be passed on 09.03.2022 whereby certain directions were issued by the trial Court with regard to visitation rights that was provided to the respondent-father to visit his minor son on certain terms and conditions. 3. It is the case of the respondent-father that the terms and conditions so ordered with regard to visitation rights of the minor child came to be violated by the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8871 WP No. 5115 of 2025 petitioner-mother, thereby committing disobedience of the order of the trial Court and contempt of the Court for violation of the visitation rights granted by the trial Court, on such application being filed by the respondent-father. The trial Court, after acceptance of the objections from the petitioner-mother, ordered a miscellaneous case to be registered on the application filed under Section 45 of the Act under the premise that the same requires enquiry. It is this order, that is questioned by the petitioner-mother on the ground that the same is illegal, arbitrary and there is no breach or violation of the terms and conditions of the order. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner-mother contends that the order dated 06.01.2025, ordering for an enquiry to be conducted and registering a separate miscellaneous case on the said IA, is bad in law and the same requires to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent-father vehemently contends that as per the orders passed by the trial Court on 09.03.2022, certain - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8871 WP No. 5115 of 2025 visitation rights were provided to the respondent-father, which have been violated, whereby the respondent-father has not been permitted to have the visitation rights as ordered by the Court. Hence, it is a clear violation and disobedience of the order. Therefore, he moved an application that has been ordered to be registered in a separate miscellaneous case; an enquiry is ordered to be conducted to decide on the said case of contempt so initiated by the respondent-father. He further contends that all contentions putforth by the learned counsel for the petitioner-mother be taken up in the miscellaneous case that could be decided in the said case rather than before this Court invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On these grounds, he seeks dismissal of the petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner- mother and learned counsel for respondent-father, it is not in dispute that the order came to be passed on 09.03.2022 granting visitation rights to the father with regard to the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8871 WP No. 5115 of 2025 minor child. It is the contention of the respondent-father that the visitation rights were not provided as per the order passed by the trial Court and there is disobedience of the order and contempt of the Court. The trial Court, after receiving the said application and objections, has ordered that the same requires enquiry and directed to register a separate miscellaneous case to deal with the matter after conducting the enquiry. 6. The grievance of the petitioner-mother is that she has complied the order, there is no violation and disobedience of the order and the child has been permitted to visit the father as per the visitation rights ordered on 09.03.2022. It is also contended that in the meanwhile, the petition came to be filed before this Court, but there is no orders passed by this Court with regard to keeping the order dated 09.03.2022 in abeyance or stay of the said order; several grounds are urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner-mother with regard to there being no disobedience of the order or contempt of the trial Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8871 WP No. 5115 of 2025 All these aspects will have to be dealt by the trial Court in the miscellaneous case registered separately on enquiry that is ordered. The petitioner-mother would have to urge
Decision
ORDER The writ petition is dismissed; The petitioner-mother is at liberty to urge all grounds that are putforth before this i) ii) - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8871 WP No. 5115 of 2025 Court in the miscellaneous case ordered to be registered by the trial Court and take up all grounds and pleas that are urged before this Court; iii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter; iv) All contentions are kept open; v) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN CT: BHK