KARNATAKA v. MISS. SONIA RAJESH, ADVOCATE)

REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SMT. USHA SRIRAM, W/O MR. A. SRIRAM, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT G4, SRI SAI PALACE APARTMENT, 8TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, VINAYAKA CLINIC, HOYSALANAGAR, BANGALORE KARNATAKA - 560 016. SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONER (BY MISS. CHANDANI G.S, ADVOCATE) AND:

1. SMT. SREE VIDYA SIVARAMAKRISHNAN - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:4627 WP No. 37210 of 2025 HC-KAR D/O SIVARAMAKRISHNAN K.S, W/O SRI. SRIRAM VIDYANATH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO. 002, THE BANYAN TREE APARTMENT, HORAMAVU MAIN ROAD, HORAMAVU, BENGALURU - 560 043. (BY MISS. AKANKSHA, ADVOCATE FOR MISS. SONIA RAJESH, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08/09/2025 ON I.A. NO. V IN G AND WC NO. 474/2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU AS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:4627 WP No. 37210 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER Heard Ms.Chandani G.S learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms.Akanksha who represents Ms.Sonia Rajesh learned counsel on record for the respondent.

2. Seeking a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ and to set aside the order that is rendered by the Court of VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore on I.A No.V in G&WC No.474/2024 dated 08.09.2025, this writ petition is filed.

3. The status of the parties is not in dispute. Thus the petitioner is the husband of the respondent. Also it is clear that the petitioner and the respondent are the biological parents of Master Avyukt Vidya, who is aged around 3 years.

4. By the submission that is made by both the learned counsel, it is further clear that the petitioner and respondent got bonded with marital tie in the year 2014 and till 2018 they stayed in India. Later they went to Bahrain and from there to United Kingdom. At United Kingdom they gave birth to Master Avyukt Vidya in the year 2022. It is equally not in dispute that - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:4627 WP No. 37210 of 2025 HC-KAR initially the petitioner/father and the child came to Bangalore in the month of December 2024 and thereafter in the same month respondent/mother came to India and took the custody of the child. Subsequently, respondent/mother initiated proceedings by filing G&WC No.474/2024. Petitioner filed I.A No.V under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, seeking the Court to return the petition as the Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is permanent resident of UK and he within short time will get UK citizenship. Learned counsel also states that respondent was holding employment visa which was issued by the Government of UK and the same expired. The child was born at UK and he resided there for two years. The child who was born in UK is governed by the Laws, Rules and Regulations of UK and thus the Courts in India have no jurisdiction to deal with either the custody of the child or the guardianship. Thus, the petition filed by the respondent invoking the Provisions of Guardians and Wards Act is not maintainable at the Courts in India and therefore he filed an application seeking the Court to return the petition filed by the respondent but the Court did not - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:4627 WP No. 37210 of 2025 HC-KAR grant the relief claimed. Learned counsel thereby seeks to set aside the impugned order.

6. Opposing the submission thus made, learned counsel for the respondent states that the child was brought back to India by the petitioner/father and as on the date of filing of the petition by the respondent/mother seeking guardianship the child is in India. Learned counsel further states that the petitioner subjected himself to the jurisdiction of this Court by filing Vakalath. Learned counsel contends respondent/mother was at UK on employment visa and not as permanent resident of UK. Learned counsel further submits that in case the Courts in India does not entertain the case filed by her seeking guardianship, she, who is not a permanent resident of UK and who does not hold any kind of visa whatsoever can neither seek protection of her rights through the Courts in India not the Courts at UK and therefore she will be left remediless.

7. Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 deals with the Courts having jurisdiction to entertain applications filed under the said Act. The said provision reads as under:- - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:4627 WP No. 37210 of 2025 HC-KAR "9. Court having jurisdiction to entertain application.—(1) If the application is with respect to the guardianship of the person of the minor, it shall be made to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides. (2) If the application is with respect to the guardianship of the property of the minor, it may be made either to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides or to a District Court having jurisdiction in a place where he has property. (3) If an application with respect to the guardianship of the property of a minor is made to a District Court other than that having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides, the Court may return the application if in its opinion the application would be disposed of more justly or conveniently by any other District Court having jurisdiction."

8. Temporary residence at a particular place either for employment or under compulsion or to attend any particular requirement at that place, how long it may be cannot be termed to be a place of ordinary residence. In the case on hand, it is not the version of the petitioner that the respondent has moved the child secretly from UK to India so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the Courts in India for getting a particular relief. That apart as per the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner it is clear that even the petitioner till - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:4627 WP No. 37210 of 2025 HC-KAR now did not acquire the citizenship of UK. Also it is clear that respondent was at UK on employment visa and on cancellation of said visa, she started residing in India. It is not the case that the child acquired UK citizenship.

9. Thus viewed from any angle, issue regarding guardianship of child, Indian Courts have got jurisdiction to deal with and to decide. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order does not suffer with any infirmity as contented by the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed.

10. Consequently proceedings pending interlocutory application are closed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17