Smt M C Smithan v. Sri Bhajan Madappa

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:40448-DB( MFA(No.(515(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010044402026( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

RDDATED(THIS(THE(3 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026(

PRESENT(

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(D(K(SINGH(

AND((

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(T.M.NADAF(

MISCELLANEOUS(FIRST(APPEAL(NO.515(OF(2026((GW)(

BETWEEN:(

SMT.,M.C.,SMITHAN,, W/O,SRI.,BHAJAN,MADAPPA,,, D/O,SRI.,MANDIRA,RAVI,CHINNAPPA,,,

AGED,ABOUT,41,YEARS,,, R/O,NO.305,,SHIVASHAKTHI,ORCHIDS,, THAPARTMENT,,8 ,CROSS,,,

OM,SHAKTHI,TEMPLE,ROAD,,, KALKERE,,HORAMAVU,,, BENGALURU,,-,560,043.,

, PRESENTLY,R/AT:,,

A,WING,301,,VASANT,BLOSSOM,,, MAROL,,ANDHERI,EAST,,, Digitally signedtiby MUMBAI,-,400,059., REKHA0R …APPELLANT, Location: (BY,SRI.,SHARATH,S,GOWDA.,,ADVOCATE),High Courttiof Karnataka AND:( SRI.,BHAJAN,MADAPPA,, S/O,SRI.,KETOLIRA,RAGHU,KUTTAPPA,,, AGED,ABOUT,43,YEARS,,, R/O,KAKKABE,VILLAGE,AND,POST,,, MADIKERI,TALUK,,KODAGU,DISTRICT, …RESPONDENT, (BY,SRI.,BEAULA,JEMIMA,THILAKAVATHI.,,ADVOCATE), ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:40448-DB( MFA(No.(515(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010044402026( ( ( , THIS,MFA,IS,FILED,UNDER,SECTION,47,OF,GUARDIANS, AND, WARDS, , ACT,, 1890,, AGAINST, THE, JUDGMENT, AND, DECREE,DATED:07.08.025,PASSED,IN,G,AND,WC.NO.349/2019,, ON, THE, FILE, OF, THE, II, ADDITIONAL, PRINCIPAL, JUDGE,, FAMILY, COURT,, BENGALURU,, PARTLY, ALLOWING, THE, PETITION, FILED, U/S.7, AND, 17, OF, THE, GUARDIANS, AND, WARDS,ACT,,1890,AND,ETC.,, , , THIS,APPEAL,,COMING,ON,FOR,ADMISSION,,THIS,DAY,, JUDGMENT,WAS,DELIVERED,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:, ,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,D,K,SINGH, ,and,, ,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,T.M.NADAF, , ORAL(JUDGMENT( (PER:,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,D,K,SINGH)( , The, present, appeal, under, Section, 47, of, the, 1Guardians, and, Wards, Act,, 1890 ,, has, been, filed, by, the, mother, of, Vansh, being, aggrieved, by, the, order, dated,

07.08.2025, passed, by, the, II, Additional, Principal, Judge,, Family,Court,,Bengaluru,,in,G,&,WC,No.349/2019,filed,by, the,father/respondent,herein.,, ,

1,for,short,'G&W,Act',,

¶2The appellant and respondent got married on

07.09.2012 in accordance with the Hindu Rights, Customs and Rituals. From the wedlock, Master Vansh Uthaiah, the son was born on 19.06.2015. It appears that the respondent/father suffered a paralytic stroke on

11.09.2018 and got hospitalised in Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru. The scores of allegations against the appellant/wife have been made by the respondent for the events which took place after he was discharged from the hospital, however, we are not going into those allegations. We are concerned only with the custody and visitation right of the father in respect of their child.

¶3It cannot be denied that the respondent has fathered the child and he is the natural guardian of the child, as the mother is. The child requires love, affection and care of both the parents. Unfortunately, when the parents fight and the matrimonial relations get sored, the children become pawns and weapon in the hands of the

parents to settle the score against each other and the ears of the children are poisoned by the party in whose custody, the children are against the other.

¶4The Family Court having considered the pleadings and evidence brought on record, exercising the parens patriae jurisdiction, had passed the following order in respect of the custody: "ORDER The present petition filed by the petitioner under Sections 7 and 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act of 1890 is hereby allowed in part.

Consequently, the petitioner is appointed as guardian of minor child Master Vansh Uthaiah with interim custody of the minor child.

In the result, the petitioner is entitled to have interim custody of the minor child i.e.,

(1) 50% summer vacation.

(2) 50% of other school vacations whenever it is more than 4 days without disturbing the minor child's academics.

(3) To have audio-video calls on weekends i.e., one very Saturdays and Sundays.

The respondent shall handover the interim custody of the minor child to the petitioner during the above periods and shall co-operate and co-ordinate with the petitioner during his interim custody of the minor child.

The petitioner shall pick up and drop the minor child at the residence of the respondent during his interim custody period with prior intimation to the respondent.

The parties are at liberty to fix the dates/duration of the above interim custody of the minor child with the respondent to the convenience of the minor child but, without disturbing the rights of the respondent.

No order as to costs."

¶5We find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned and balanced order passed by the Family Court. The child is now more than 11 years of age and he is studying in Boarding School. We, therefore, presuming that he would have developed certain reasoning and understanding about his well being, he must get emotionally connected with the father and this would be in the interest of the child himself. When the Court exercises the parens patriae jurisdiction, it is the paramount interest

of the child which is to be taken into consideration for passing the order of the custody/visitation. We have no manner of doubt that the order passed by the Family Court requires no interference by this Court. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.

Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 ct-vn