Smt. J N Divyashree v. Sri. S Anoop Kumar

Judgment relied by learned counsel for petitioner in support of his arguments reported in (2008) 7 Supreme Court Cases 673 in between Mausami Mottra Ganguli VS. Jayant Ganguli, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court by considering the interest of the minor Ward and by holding that the interest of the minor Ward is paramount consideration given the permanent custody of the Ward to the father and granted visitation right to the mother, is amply applicable to the present case on hand. Merely because the respondent is the mother of minor Wards, the Wards cannot permitted to retain with the custody

of the respondent against the interest of the minor Wards. As per the provisions of Hindu Law, the father is the guardian of the minor Wards. The petitioner being a biological father of the minor Wards protected and safeguarded the interest of the Wards and provide him bright future by giving good education and environment that which is very much required for the Wards for their overall development. Hence, by considering all these facts and evidence adduced by both the parties in the interest of the minor Wards, it is opined that the petitioner is entitled for reliefs claimed and petition is deserves to be allowed. However the respondent has got a right to visit he son on every weekends, during school holidays of the child with prior intimation to petitioner. Hence, Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative."

5.7 It is this order passed by the Family Court is called in question in MFA No.1744/2026.

¶6Heard, Sri.Naren Shakthi Swaroop, learned counsel appearing for Sri.M.N.Umashankar, learned counsel for the respondent/wife/mother and Sri.S.Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband/father.

¶7Sri.Naresh Shakthi Swaroop, with all vehemence submits that, the wife was not accorded sufficient opportunities to lead her evidence, which has denied her to take an exception to the evidence led by the husband. He submits that she has cross-examined the petitioner - PW.1 fully, there were several admissions by the petitioner - husband. The photographs produced by the petitioner were created photographs. The chats between the respondent and several other persons are also created and concocted to suit his unholy claim. The Family Court has not considered these aspects of the matter, which has resulted in grave injustice to the wife/ mother by granting divorce as well as handing over the permanent custody of Vihaan.A, to the husband/father.

7.1 Learned counsel submits that the Family Court in an haste, without affording reasonable opportunities to the respondent to present her case, passed the impugned Judgment and Decree in both the cases.

7.2 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner - father filed petition under the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The respondent had to run after both the proceedings and in that view of the matter, she lost track of the proceedings. He submits that the wife filed an application seeking transfer of the matter in Misc. No.14/2025. However, during the pendency of the said petition, the Family Court passed the decree in an haste. In that view of the matter, the Judgment passed is without affording proper opportunities to the wife to lead evidence to save her marriage and the same is against the principles of natural justice. Decree of divorce is granted on the ground of cruelty alleged to have been caused by the respondent against the petitioner, however, it is the petitioner - husband, who has neglected of his marital obligation and caused cruelty to the respondent. All his allegations are baseless and even the documents produced are

created one. The cross-examination clearly suggests that the documents produced are created. There were several admissions by the petitioner with respect to documents, which the Family Court has failed to consider. The respondent was not provided sufficient opportunity to discredit the alleged chats and nude photographs. It is the specific case of respondent wife in her statement of objections that, all these documents were created by husband while they were living together as the phone was always with the husband and to prove this aspect, the respondent wife was denied reasonable opportunity by the Family Court.

7.3 In G & WC proceedings, the wife was neither given an opportunity to cross-examine Pw.1 nor to lead her evidence. The child is tender age child, and was just 4½ years at the time of filing of the petition in the year 2024. In that view of the matter, the custody normally should have been with the mother. The

Family Court has failed to consider this aspect of the matter and in an haste proceeded to grant custody directing the respondent - mother to handover the child permanently to the petitioner - father. The entire proceedings went on conducting without affording any reasonable opportunity to the respondent, amounting to violation of principles of natural justice and sought to dismiss the same and remand the matter by providing an opportunity to the respondent - wife - mother to lead her evidence in support of her case to save the marriage as well as custody of the child.

¶8In contrast, Sri.S.Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband/ father argued in support of the Judgment and order passed by the Family Court. He submits that the contention of the appellant does not survive for consideration to accept the claim regarding not providing opportunities to lead evidence. He submits that the order sheet of the Family

Court speaks itself, the number of opportunities provided to the respondent, which were not properly availed by her. It is the respondent who is responsible for her lack of diligence in conducting the case, now it is not open for her to at the Family Court that, it has failed to afford proper and reasonable opportunity.

8.1 Learned counsel further submits that the order sheet maintained by the Family Court speaks in length from the date the evidence of the petitioner has been led. Several adjournments have been taken before proceeding to cross-examine the petitioner - husband. The husband was cross-examined on four occasions. Though opportunities were granted several times to lead evidence, however on one or the other reason, the wife escaped from entering the witness box and failed to lead evidence. She also filed application under Order 12 Rule 8 of CPC seeking certain documents to be produced by the petitioner - husband, to which the husband submitted

reply. The conduct of the respondent clearly shows that she is deliberately withholding herself from entering into witness box. The Family Court after considering the entire material available on record, both in the Matrimonial case as well as Custody case, proceeded to grant the relief as prayed for in the said petitions respectively. As such, both the orders neither suffers from any infirmity nor call for any interference at the hands of this Court and sought to dismiss both the appeals.

¶9Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the entire appeal memorandum in both the appeals and also TCR in MFA No.1742/2026 in divorce petition. The following only points would arise for our consideration:

(1) Whether the Family Court has failed to provide reasonable opportunity to the respondent - wife/ mother to contest the

matter both in Divorce petition as well as Custody petition?

(2) Whether the Family Court is right in granting decree of divorce, thereby dissolving the marriage between the petitioner - husband and respondent - wife?

(3) Whether the Family Court is right in granting custody of the minor child Vihaan.A, to the petitioner - father?

¶10Our answer to the above points for consideration are as under: Point No.1 : In the Negative. Point No.2 : In the Affirmative. Point No.3 : In the Affirmative, for the following: REASONS

¶11POINT NO.1: So far as the contention of Mr.Naren Shakthi Swaroop, on depriving the right of the

respondent - wife/ mother to contest the matter in both the petitions is concerned, in divorce petition, the respondent - wife has taken several adjournments to cross-examine PW.1 - petitioner / husband and lastly on 4th occasion she has cross-examined him fully.

¶12The order sheet maintained by the Family Court clearly depicts that the petitioner/ husband after his examination in chief on 04.02.2025 by way of affidavit and marking Ex.P1 to P16, remained absent when the case was listed for cross-examination on 20.02.2025. The matter was accordingly adjourned to 04.03.2025. The petitioner/ husband was again remained absent, as such the matter was adjourned to 15.03.2025. On 15.03.2025, the petitioner/ husband, filed application seeking to produce additional documents and sought permission to lead further examination in chief. The said application came to be allowed and Ex.P7 to P17 were marked and the matter was adjourned to

25.03.2025 for cross-examination. On that day, at the request of respondent,

the matter was adjourned to 09.04.2025. On that day, respondent wife was absent and counsel for the respondent sought time on the ground that she filed power on behalf of respondent recently and required time to get the case papers ready, accordingly the matter was adjourned to 29.04.2025. On 29.04.2025, since the P.O was on leave, the matter was adjourned to 10.06.2025. On that day, the respondent cross-examined PW.1 and for further cross-examination, the matter was adjourned to

25.06.2025. Learned counsel for the respondent sought time as her senior was suffering from ill-health and the case was adjourned to 08.07.2025. On 08.07.2025, PW.1 was cross-examined and respondent again sought further time to cross-examine PW.1 and the said request was rejected and the matter was listed for respondent evidence on 18.07.2025. Thereafter, the respondent - wife filed an application under Order 12 Rule 8 of CPC, seeking direction to the petitioner - husband to produce certain documents. The petitioner husband filed his reply to the

said application stating that there are no such documents available with him sought in the application and the respondent wife instead of proving her case in accordance with the law, cannot insist on the documents from him, the respondent wife has to establish her case independently and he is not bound to answer the question mentioned in Sl.No.4 of the Notice as the same is not in issue in dispute before the Court.

¶13Thereafter, the matter was listed on

30.07.2025, on that day, the respondent - wife filed an application praying to reopen the case of the petitioner and praying to recall PW.1 for the purpose of further cross-examination. The application was allowed, since PW.1 was present, he was fully cross-examined and for respondent side evidence, the matter was adjourned to

12.08.2025. On 12.08.2025, the respondent was absent and a request was made by her counsel, however as a last chance, the matter was adjourned to 20.08.2025. On

20.08.2025 also, the respondent remained absent and a

request was made seeking further time. The Family Court observed that in spite of affording sufficient opportunities, the respondent has not chosen to lead evidence and rejected the request and respondent side evidence was taken as nil and the matter was posted for arguments on

04.09.2025.

¶14For easy reference and brevity, the order sheet from 04.02.2025 till disposal of the case is extracted below:

04.02.2025 P - HSK R-CLN PTNR. EVI. Respondent present. Petitioner present and filed Affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and examined as PW-1. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 documents marked. Cross examination of PW1 adjourned on request. Hence Posted for cross examination of PW1 by 20.02.2025.

Sd/-

I Addl. Prl Judge,

Family Court, Mysuru

20.02.2025 P - HSK R - CLN Both parties are absent. PW.1 absent. His counsel absent.

X of PW.1 No representation. Learned counsel for respondent present. To keep PW.1 present for the purpose of cross examination by 04.03.2025.

Sd/-

I Addl. Prl Judge,

Family Court, Mysuru

04.03.2025 P - HSK R - CLN X of PW.1

Petitioner absent. Respondent present. PW.1 absent. His counsel absent. No representation. Hence, to keep PW.1 present for the purpose of cross examination by

15.03.2025.

Sd/-

I Addl. Prl Judge,

Family Court, Mysuru

15.03.2025 P - HSK R - CLN X of PW.1

Respondent absent. Petitioner present. Learned counsel for petitioner filed application seeking permission to produce documents and sought permission to lead further chief examination and mark those documents. Learned counsel for respondent present. Heard. Perused the application and same is allowed. PW.1 present and further examined in part. Ex.P7 to Ex.P17 documents are

marked. Cross examination off PW.1 adjourned on request. Call on 25.03.2025.

Sd/-

I Addl. Prl Judge,

Family Court, Mysuru

25.03.2025 P - HSK R - CLN X of PW.1

Petitioner/ PW.1 present. Respondent absent. Learned counsel for respondent present and prays time on the ground that her senior counsel has gone out of station. Hence, cross examination of PW.1 adjourned as last chance by 09.04.2025.

Sd/-

I Addl. Prl Judge,

Family Court, Mysuru

09.04.2025 P - HSK R - CLN X of PW.1

Petitioner present. Respondent absent. Sri.CLN

Advocae filed power for respondent along with NOC of previous counsel. Learned counsel for respondent prays time on the ground that today she filed power and to get the case papers ready, she required time. Hence, posted for cross examination of PW.1 as last chance by 29.04.2025.

Sd/-

I Addl. Prl Judge,

Family Court, Mysuru

29.04.2025 P - HSK R - CLN X of PW.1

P.O is on CL/EL/Training/Vacation. Call on 10.06.2025.

Sd/-

I/c Family Court, Mysuru

10.06.2025 P - HSK R - CLN X of PW.1

Both parties are present. PW.1 present and cross examined in part. Further cross examination of PW.1 adjourned on request. Call on 25.06.2025.

Sd/-

I Addl. Prl Judge,

Family Court, Mysuru

05.06.2025 P - HSK R - CLN X of PW.1

Both parties are present. PW.1 present. Learned counsel for respondent present and prays time on the ground that her senior counsel his suffering from ill health. Hence, cross examination of PW.1 by

08.07.2025.

Sd/-

I Addl. Prl Judge,

Family Court, Mysuru

08.07.2025 P - HSK R - CLN X of PW.1

Both parties are present. PW.1 present and further cross examined. Learned counsel for respondent prays to adjourn the case for further cross examination of PW.1. Heard. No grounds made out to adjourn

the case on the same stage for further cross examination of PW.1. In spite of sufficient opportunities to the respondent, she has fully cross examined PW.1. Hence, prayer rejected. Further cross examination of PW.1 is taken as closed. Witness discharged. Petitioner side evidence closed. Respondent has taken notice under O.12 Rule 8 of CPC seeking issuance of direction to the petitioner to produce the documents. Posted for reply and the respondent side evidence by 18.07.2025.

Sd/-

I Addl. Prl Judge,

Family Court, Mysuru

18.07.2025 P - HSK R - CLN RESP. EVI.

Both parties are absent. Learned counsel for petitioner filed reply to the notice under taken U/O.12 Rule 8 of CPC. Learned counsel for respondent prays time for respondent side evidence. Hence, posted for respondent side evidence finally by 30.07.2025.

Sd/-

I Addl. Prl Judge,

Family Court, Mysuru

30.07.2025 P - HSK R - CLN RESP. EVI.

Both parties are present. Learned counsel for respondent filed application U/Sec. 151 of CPC praying to reopen the case of the petitioner and U/O 18 Rule 17 R/w Sec.151 of CPC praying to recall PW.1 for the purpose of further cross examination. Learned counsel for petitioner present and submitted that application may be allowed. Heard both sides. Perused the IAs, both the applications are allowed. PW.1 present and further cross examined in full through in camera evidence. Petitioner side evidence closed. Learned counsel for respondent prays time. Hence, posted for respondent side evidence as last chance by 12.08.2025.

Sd/-

I Addl. Prl Judge,

Family Court, Mysuru

12.08.2025 P - HSK R - CLN RESP. EVI.

Petitioner present. Respondent absent. Learned counsel for respondent present and prays time on the ground that the relation of the respondent was expired and as such she was unable to appear

before this Court to give her evidence. Posted for respondent side evidence as last chance by 20.08.2025.

Sd/-

I Addl. Prl Judge,

Family Court, Mysuru

20.08.2025 P - HSK R - CLN RESP. EVI.

Petitioner present. Respondent absent. Learned counsel for respondent present and prays time for respondent side evidence. Heard. No grounds made out to adjourn the case on the same stage for respondent side evidence. In spite of opportunities, the respondent has no chosen to lead her evidence. Hence, prayer is rejected and respondent side evidence taken as nil. Posted for arguments on 04.09.2025.

Sd/-

I Addl. Prl Judge,

Family Court, Mysuru

04.09.2025 P - HSK R - CLN ARGUMENTS

Both parties are present. Learned counsels for petitioner present and prays time. Hence posted for arguments by

16.09.2025.

Sd/-

I Addl. Prl Judge,

Family Court, Mysuru

16.09.2025 P - HSK R - CLN ARGUMENTS

Petitioner present. Respondent absent. Learned counsel for petitioner present and submitted his side argument on merit. As the respondent and her counsel absent. Case posted for respondent argument by

18.09.2025.

Sd/-

I Addl. Prl Judge,

Family Court, Mysuru

18.09.2025 P - HSK R - CLN RESP. ARGUMENTS

Petitioner present. Respondent absent. Her counsel absent. No representation. Case kept by.

Again case called out at 3.12 pm. Petitioner present. Respondent absent. Her counsel absent. No representation. Even though there is no grounds made out to adjourn the case on the same stage for respondent side argument in the absence of respondent and her counsel. However, to grant one more opportunity to the respondent to address arguments, case adjourned for respondent side arguments as last chance by 26.09.2025.

Sd/-

I Addl. Prl Judge,

Family Court, Mysuru

26.09.2025 P - HSK R - CLN RESP. ARGUMENTS

Petitioner present. Respondent absent. Her counsel absent. No representation. Case kept by.

Again case called out at 12:33 pm. Petitioner present. Respondent absent. Her counsel absent. No representation. No grounds made out to adjourn the case on the same stage for respondent side arguments in the absence of respondent and her counsel. In spite of opportunity, the respondent has not chosen to submit her side of arguments. Hence, respondent side arguments taken as nil. Posted for further arguments if any by,

10.10.2025.

Sd/-

I Addl. Prl Judge,

Family Court, Mysuru

10.10.2025 P - HSK R - CLN For Further hearing

Both parties are present. Sri.C.V. Advocate filed power for respondent along with NOC of previous counsel. Case kept by.

Again case called out at 3.30 pm. Petitioner present.

Respondent absent. Learned counsel for respondent prays time to submit his arguments on the ground today he filed vakalath for the respondent. Perused the order sheet, the Court has granted ample opportunity to the respondent to submit his arguments. But however, the respondent has failed to submit her arguments. Learned counsel for petitioner present and seriously objected to grant adjournment on the ground that the respondent throughout the proceedings appeared but however she has not intentionally led her evidence and even she has not submitted her side of arguments. Hence, prays to reject the prayer for adjournment. Perused the order sheet, as this Court has granted ample opportunity to the respondent, even this Court by an order dated 26.09.2025 taken the respondent side argument as nil. In such being the case, once again adjourning the case on the same stage does not arise. However, by reserving the right of arguments of the respondent with a direction to file written arguments with due notice to the petitioner. Case posted for judgment by 10.11.2025.

Sd/-

I Addl. Prl Judge,

Family Court, Mysuru

10.11.2025 P - HSK Both parties are present.

R - CV JUDGMENT

Judgment not ready. Judgment by 01.12.2025.

Sd/-

I Addl. Prl Judge,

Family Court, Mysuru

01.12.2025 P - HSK R - CV FOR JUDGMENT

Judgment pronounced in the open Court, vide separate judgment

ORDER

The petition filed U/s 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, is allowed with cost.

Consequently, the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and respondent on 24.04.2019 at Nithyananda Kalyana Mantapa, Vidyaranyapuram, Mysuru and registered before Registrar of Marriages, Mysuru South vide No.MYS-HM142-2019-20 dated 03.05.2019 in CD No.MYSM20, is hereby dissolved.

Both parties are liberated from the bondage of marriage.

Draw decree accordingly.

Office to furnish free copy of the decree to both parties as contemplated under Sec.23(4) of H.M.Act.

Sd/-

I Addl. Prl Judge,

Family Court, Mysuru

¶15It is not the case of the respondent wife that immediately after rejecting the prayer to lead evidence on

20.08.2025, the Family Court passed the Judgment. As could be seen from the order sheet, after 20.08.2025, matter was listed on 06 occasions providing opportunity to submit her arguments. Ultimately, the judgment came to be passed in the month of December 2025. The Family Court has taken nearly four months time from the date of rejecting the prayer of respondent till passing the Judgment, upon affording opportunity to both the sides to canvass their arguments. The Order sheet of the Family Court speaks about the opportunities granted to the respondent wife, which she has failed to avail.

¶16A perusal of the order sheet in divorce petition as well as order passed in G & WC clearly shows that despite providing several opportunities, the respondent has not availed the same to lead her evidence to disrupt the case of the petitioner / husband / father, by producing any corroborative or cogent evidence in support of her

contention that the photographs produced are all created, concocted and the allegations made are baseless. In that view of the matter, we have no other option, except to hold that the respondent wife withheld herself from entering into witness box, perhaps to withhold herself from cross-examination. In that view of the matter, we find no substance in the argument of Sri.Naren Shakthi Swaroop, that the Family Court has failed to afford reasonable opportunity to the respondent wife to prove her case to save the marriage or to save the custody of the child. Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 in the Negative, against the wife and in favor of the husband.

¶17POINT NO.2: Mr.Naren Shakthi Swaroop, with all vehemence submitted that the documents produced are created and there are certain admissions by the petitioner - husband in the cross-examination, which the Family Court has failed to consider. As observed supra, the respondent has not led any evidence on her own to contradict the evidence of husband either oral evidence or

documentary. The documents produced on its own speaks that they are selfie photographs. The electronic documents are supported with the Certificate. The veracity of the same has not been destructed by leading any evidence. If the respondent wife has any doubt or suspicion regarding the same, ought to have sought for forensic test of the same in order to support her contention. No such attempt has been made by the wife. In the absence of any contra evidence, we are of the considered opinion that the Family Court on the available evidence, has properly considered the entire evidence, especially from Paragraph Nos.20, 29 and 31 of its Judgment, to come to the conclusion that the conduct of the wife during the marital relationship was objectionable, as she was having relationship with other person, out of marital tie, which seriously caused mental torture and cruelty to the husband and rightly so considered and granted divorce. As such there is no infirmity found which requires any interference. So far as opportunity, we have already answered the conduct of the

respondent wife in her failure to avail the opportunities accorded. In that view of the matter, we answer Point No.2 in the Affirmative, against the wife and in favor of the husband.

¶18POINT NO.3: At the first instance, the arguments advanced by Mr.Naren Shakthi Swaroop, appear to be persuasive/ appealable, particularly in light of Section 6 of the Guardians and Wards Act, which recognizes that, although the father is the natural guardian, the custody of a minor child below the age of five years ordinarily remains with the mother. However, a perusal of the allegations made in both the divorce petition as well as custody, the said contention of learned counsel cannot be countenanced. The Child is at very tender age. The Family Court in the divorce petition filed by the father/husband against the mother/wife, granted divorce on the ground of cruelty, in view of objectionable relationship of the wife/mother with some other persons,

out of the marriage, when the marriage was still subsisting with the husband/ father.

¶19A well cultured healthy environment/ atmosphere is very much required for the nourishment and development of tender aged child. The child is now 6½ years. The Courts stepping into the parents' patriae jurisdiction are duty bound to consider the paramount welfare of the child as the primary object, rather the egoistic claim made by the parents. In normal circumstances, considering the tender age of the child, we would have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/ mother, but for the conduct of the wife having extra marital relationship with somebody else, that too, during the subsistence of marriage, which was proved in divorce petition and the same also taken into consideration by the Family Court while considering the case of minor's custody to the husband/father carefully at Paragraph Nos.24 to 27, which we have already extracted above, the atmosphere/ environment with the

mother is not congenial to the healthy/ better future of the minor Ward. Merely because the respondent is a mother, cannot be a reason to permit her to retain the custody of the minor Ward. The welfare and healthy development of the child would not be safer with the mother in the better interest of the child. A minor cannot be given to the custody of a parent wherein the interest of the minor Ward would be jeopardized.

¶20The petitioner /husband being a biological father of the minor, the interest of minor Ward would be better protected and safeguarded to give him a bright future by providing good education and environment, which is very much required for the overall development of the Ward and better safeguarded, if the custody is given to him.

¶21It is trite law that the welfare of the minor is considered as the absolute and paramount consideration, overriding strict statutory technicalities and parental

rights. The Courts stepping into parents' patriae jurisdiction are duty bound to prioritize the child's best interests, focusing on their moral, ethical, physical, and emotional well-being and development of the child. The facts of the case, makes it very clear that the better interest of the child is safeguarded with the biological father i.e., the petitioner, rather with the mother. However, at the very same time, it cannot be lost sight that the appellant herein is the mother. In that view of the matter, she can be afforded visitation rights through video calls on every alternative day for 15 to 20 minutes.

¶22It is on record that the child was with the father and his family members and as per the record i.e., FIR at Ex.P5, the child was alleged to have been forcibly taken from the custody of the petitioner/ husband/ father by the family members of respondent/ wife/ mother. In view of the allegations and counter-allegations, evidence produced and proved in divorce petition as well as G & WC petition as the same is not controverted by leading cogent and

corroborative evidence by the wife/ mother by entering into witness box and by producing supportive documents, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Family Court in granting custody of child to the petitioner / father. As we have already answered the question of opportunities denied as alleged by learned counsel for the wife in Point No.1, the reiteration of the same is not required in this point. Accordingly, we answer Point No.3 in the Affirmative.

¶23For the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER

(i) Both the appeals filed by the respondent/ wife/ mother are dismissed.

(ii) Considering the fact that the appellant herein is mother, she is given a visitation rights, only to make video calls and talk/ converse with the child for 15 to 20

minutes, every alternative day, between 7:00 pm and 9:00 pm.

(iii) The petitioner herein i.e., the father, shall not deny the visitation rights through video calls, provided in this order.

(iv) Any denial would avail the mother/ appellant herein to move an application before the Family Court or this Court seeking modification of visitation rights.

(v) Given the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.

¶24In view of dismissal of the appeals, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1742 OF 2026 (FC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1744 OF 2026 IN MFA No. 1742/2026 BETWEEN: SMT. J N DIVYASHREE D/O NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/A NO. 94, 5TH CROSS, E AND F BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGARA, MYSURU-570022 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAREN SHAKTHI SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.M.N.UMASHANKAR., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI.S. ANOOP KUMAR S/O J. SHANTHA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A NO. 2162, 6TH CROSS, K BLOCK, KUVEMPUNAGARA, MYSURU-570023 PRESENT ADDRESS NO. 7652, 2ND PHASE, 4TH STAGE, VIJAYANAGARA, MYSURU CITY - 570018 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.S.RUPESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.01.12.2025 PASSED IN MC NO. 1033/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL PRL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S 13(1)(i-a) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955. IN MFA NO. 1744/2026 BETWEEN: SMT. J.N DIVYASHREE D/O.NANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/A 94, 5TH CROSS, E AND F BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGARA MYSURU-570022. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI.NAREN SHAKTHI SWAROOP, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.M.N.UMASHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. S ANOOP KUMAR S/O J. SHANTHA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/A 2162, 6TH CROSS, K BLOCK, KUVEMPUNAGARA, MYSURU - 570 023 PRESENT ADDRESS 7652, 2ND PHASE, 4TH STAGE, VIJAYANAGARA, MYSURU CITY 570018. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.S.RUPESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/ RESPONDENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.47(a) OF GUARDIANS WARDS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.09.01.2026 PASSED IN G AND WC.NO. 68/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL PRL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S 7(a) AND (b) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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 T.M NADAF) These two appeals being MFA No.1742/2026, by the respondent - wife, calling in question the Judgment and Decree dated 01.12.2025 passed by the I Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Mysuru1 in M.C No.1033/2024, thereby dissolving the marriage between the petitioner - husband and respondent - wife, which was solemnized on 24.04.2019 at Nithyananda Kalyana Mantapa, Vidyaranyapuram, Mysuru and registered before the Registrar of Marriages, Mysuru South vide No.MYS-HM142- 2019-20 dated 03.05.2019 in CD No.MYSM20 and MFA No.1744/2026, by the respondent - wife/mother, assailing the order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the Family Court in G & WC No.68/2024, whereby directing the respondent - 1 'the Family Court', for short wife/mother to handover the custody of minor ward by name Vihaan.A, to the custody of petitioner/ father, for his better future. 2. Though both the Judgments are passed in distinct proceedings, the parties to the lis being the same, with consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, both the appeals are taken together for disposal, at the stage of admission itself. 3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court. 4. Facts germane to file these appeals are as under: MFA No.1742/2026 AS PER THE PETITIONER: 4.1 The petitioner and respondent were husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 24.04.2019 at Nithyananda Kalyana Mantapa, Vidyaranyapuram, Mysuru as per rites and customs prevailed in Hindu community. The petitioner is a Software Consultant by profession and after the marriage, the respondent joined the petitioner at matrimonial home. From the wedlock, they have a male child born on 04.02.2020 by name Vihaan.A. 4.2 The petitioner was often and often losing his health and upon investigation, he was found diabetic and also diagnosed of food poisoning because of which he frequently fell ill and also lost