Dhruv Saxena v. Pragati Mehrotra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO. 16790 OF 2026 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: DHRUV SAXENA SON OF PRADEEP RAI SAXENA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 17/1, THE MANOR, ALFRED STREET, RICHMOND TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 025. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARUN GOVINDRAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: PRAGATI MEHROTRA DAUGHTER OF RAKESH MEHROTRA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.12, FLAT NO. GF001, CT BELLA VISTA, 6TH CROSS, HUTCHINS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 084. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RISHABHA RAJ THAKUR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING / SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.05.2026 PASSED BY by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE HONBLE IV ADDL. PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT BENGALURU IN G AND WC NO. 10/2026 ON INTERIM APPLICATION NO. VI (ANNX-P) AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Arun Govindraj learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Rishabha Raj Thakuar learned counsel for the respondent.

¶2Seeking the Court to quash the order that is passed by the Court of IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on I.A No.VI in G&WC No.10/2026 dated

02.05.2026, this writ petition is filed.

¶3The operative portion of the impugned order is as under:- "The respondent is permitted to meet the child Rumi Rai on every Saturday from 11.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. at the Child's Visitation Room, at 4th Floor of the Nyaya Degula Building. The

respondent is also permitted to speak with the child Rumi Rai through video call daily in between 7.00 p.m. and 9.00 p.m. for 20 minutes. The petitioner is directed to co operate and facilitate the respondent in exercising visitation right. The petitioner and respondent are directed to maintain peace and harmony as responsible persons at the time of exercising visitation right. The above directions shall be scrupulously obeyed by the petitioner and respondent which are in the best interest of the child and keeping in mind the comfort well being and paramount interest of the minor child".

¶4During the course of submission, learned counsel for the petitioner blamed and pointed out the attitude of respondent and likewise learned counsel for the respondent blamed the petitioner in respect of his attitude and behaviour. Keeping aside those allegations and counter-allegations which have no bearing and relevant to decide this writ petition, the fact that remains is that the Family Court through order dated

28.01.2026 granted interim visitation rights permitting respondent/mother to meet the child Rumi Rai in the visitation room of the Family Court on every first and third Saturday between 11.00 a.m. and 01.00 p.m.,. Permission was also accorded to respondent to meet the child through video calls twice a week between 07.00 p.m. and 09.00 p.m. for 10 to 15 minutes. Respondent/mother through I.A No.VI sought modification of the order dated 28.01.2026. On that Family Court permitted respondent/mother to meet child Rumi Rai on every Saturday between 11.00 a.m. to 04.00 p.m. Permission was also accorded to respondent/mother to speak with the child through video calls daily between 07.00 p.m. and 09.00 p.m. for 20 minutes.

¶5Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that child is aged around 3 years. Child requires rest and the child sleeps every afternoon. Even respondent/mother is aware of that fact. Child therefore cannot be made to sit from 11.00 a.m. to 04.00 p.m. so as to facilitate respondent/mother to spend time with the child. Learned counsel thereby seeks to set aside the

impugned order so that visitation can be effected as per order dated 28.01.2026.

¶6On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent states that visiting the child twice a month is not sufficient for respondent/mother to shower affection upon the child and thus necessary orders may be passed.

¶7After making aforementioned submission by both the learned counsel, both the learned counsel collectively submitted that the impugned order may be modified granting interim visitation rights to the respondent/mother to meet the child from 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. on every Saturday until further orders by the Family Court.

¶8Having considered justification in the relief thus sought for and considering the best interests of the child, this writ petition is disposed of with the following:- ORDER i. The order that is rendered by the Court of IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore

on I.A No.VI in G&WC No.10/2026 dated 02.05.2026 is modified. ii. Respondent/mother is permitted to meet and spend time with the child Rumi Rai on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. at the child's visitation room, Nyaya Degula Building, Bangalore. iii. Respondent/mother is also permitted to speak with the child through video calls daily between 07.00 p.m. and 09.00 p.m. for a period not exceeding 20 minutes. iv. In the light of the submission that is made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent is being accompanied by others during the time of visitation and having considered the submission by learned counsel for the respondent that her friend is accompanying the respondent only because she has a threat from the petitioner, it is ordered that respondent/mother shall alone meet the child Rumi Rai as per the arrangement made through this order and none shall accompany her inside the visitation room during the time of visit.

v. Family Court is directed to make necessary arrangements for the safe stay of the respondent as well as the child at the visitation room during the time of the visits. vi. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16