Karnataka High Court
Mr Harish V V vs Mrs N Prameela on 13 November, 2025
-1-
MFA No. 1658 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 1598 of 2025
Reserved on : 24.10.2025
Pronounced on : 13.11.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 1658 OF 2025 (GW)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 1598 OF 2025
IN MFA No. 1658/2025
BETWEEN:
1. MR. HARISH V. V.,
S/O VENKATA HANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
Digitally signed RESIDING AT No.199,
by VALLI 1ST CROSS, HMT LAYOUT,
MARIMUTHU
Location: HIGH MATHIKERE, BENGALURU - 560 054.
COURT OF ...APPELLANT
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI HEMANTH R. RAO., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. K. P. VENKATESH,
S/O K.P. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
2. MRS. M.L. PUSHPALATHA,
W/O. K.P. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
-2-
MFA No. 1658 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 1598 of 2025
3. MRS. SHARDAMMA,
W/O. LATE PUTTASWAMY GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
4. MRS. N. PRAMEELA,
D/O. LATE NANJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
No.259, 10TH CROSS,
SARASWATHI NAGAR,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 575 017.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GIRI KUMAR S. V., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 47(a) OF
GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT, 1890, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 29.10.2024 PASSED IN G AND WC
No.175/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE
PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 7 AND 12 OF G AND W ACT
R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.
IN MFA No. 1598/2025
BETWEEN:
1. MR. HARISH V. V.,
S/O VENKATA HANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.199,
1ST 'A' CROSS, HMT LAYOUT,
MATHIKERE,
BENGALURU-560054.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI HEMANTH R. RAO., ADVOCATE)
-3-
MFA No. 1658 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 1598 of 2025
AND:
1. MRS. N. PRAMEELA,
D/O LATE NANJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
RESIDING AT RAGHAVENDRA FARM HOUSE,
NALLURU VILLAGE,
CHANNARAYAPATANA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT,
NALLURU-573116.
2. SRI K. P. VENKATESH,
S/O K. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
3. SMT. M. L. PUSHPALATHA,
W/O K.P. VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE
RESIDING AT No.259, 10TH CROSS,
SARASWATHI NAGAR,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-575017.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GIRI KUMAR S. V., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 47(a) OF
GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 29.10.2024 PASSED ON G AND WC
No.260/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, REJECTING THE
PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 7 AND 25 OF GUARDIAN
AND WARDS ACT.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, K.V. ARAVIND, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
-4-
MFA No. 1658 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 1598 of 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)
Heard Sri Hemanth R. Rao, learned counsel for the
appellant, and Sri S.V. Girikumar, learned counsel for the
respondents in both the appeals.
2. These appeals arise out of the common order dated
29.10.2024 passed in G & WC No.175/2019 and G & WC
No.260/2020 by the III Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Bengaluru1.
3. G & WC No.175/2019 was filed under Sections 7 and 12
of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, by the maternal uncle,
aunt, and grandmother, seeking appointment of the maternal
uncle and aunt as de jure guardians of the minor, Master
Bhuvan H., and for permission to continue to have his custody.
G & WC No.260/2020 was filed by the father under Sections 7
and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking custody
of his minor son, Master Bhuvan H.
1
Family Court
-5-
MFA No. 1658 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 1598 of 2025
4. The Family Court, after considering the common
evidence, rejected the petition filed by the father and allowed
the petition in G & WC No.175/2019, directing that the custody
of the minor shall continue with the petitioners till he attains
the age of majority. The Family Court further observed that
upon attaining majority, the ward, Master Bhuvan H., may opt
to reside with his father. These appeals are filed by the father
assailing the said common order.
5. Sri Hemanth R. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, submits that the Family Court has placed undue
emphasis on the wish of the ward to continue in the custody of
the maternal uncle. Learned counsel contends that the Family
Court has failed to apply the principle of the paramount welfare
of the ward in its true perspective. It is further submitted that
the appellant, being the father, is financially well placed to
support and build the career of the ward, whereas the maternal
uncle lacks the economic means to do so. It is further
contended that, owing to the poor financial condition of the
maternal uncle, the appellant has been bearing the educational
and other expenses of the ward. Learned counsel submits that
the appellant is in a position to provide better facilities and
-6-
MFA No. 1658 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 1598 of 2025
opportunities for the ward's overall development than those
presently available with the maternal uncle.
5.1 Learned counsel further submits that the father, being the
natural guardian, is entitled to the custody of the minor
irrespective of any other consideration. It is contended that the
Family Court, while directing that the custody of the ward shall
remain with the maternal uncle, failed to consider the legal
right of the appellant to have custody of his minor son. Learned
counsel further submits that the observations made by the
Family Court for continuing the custody with the maternal uncle
are unfounded and without any legal basis.
5.2 The appellant has relied upon the following judgments to
contend that, being the father and natural guardian, he is
entitled to the custody of the minor. It is further submitted that
the wish of the child, by itself, cannot form the sole basis for
determining the custody of the minor ward.
(i) Gautam Kumar Das vs. NCT of Delhi and
others2;
(ii) Sri G. Prabhudev and another vs. Smt.
Ranganayaki and others3; and
(iii) Rohith Thammana Gowda vs. State of
Karnataka & others4.
2
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 451
3
MFA No.4658/2023 C/W MFA CROB No.24/2024
4
[2022] 4 SCR 784
-7-
MFA No. 1658 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 1598 of 2025
6. Per contra, Sri S.V. Girikumar, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents, reiterating the submissions made before
the Family Court, submits that the ward is comfortable in the
custody of the respondents. Having regard to the age of the
ward, it is contended that it would not be in the best interest of
the child to compel a change of custody in favour of the father.
It is further submitted that the ward is presently pursuing a
Diploma in Mechanical Engineering, and any change of custody
at this stage would adversely affect his academic progress.
However, learned counsel fairly submits that if the ward, of his
own volition, expresses a desire to reside with his father, the
respondents would have no objection thereto.
7. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties, it is noted that respondent Nos.1 to 4 have
expressed no objection to the custody of Master Bhuvan H.
being given to the appellant. However, such submission is
stated to be subject to the wish of the ward. The Family Court
has referred to the cordial relationship between the appellant
and the respondents, as well as the interactive and affectionate
relationship between the appellant and the ward. The Family
Court has further recorded, based on its interaction with the
parties and the ward during the proceedings, that the appellant
-8-
MFA No. 1658 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 1598 of 2025
and the respondents share cordial relations and are on good
talking terms. It is further observed by the Family Court that
the ward shares a good relationship with his father and that the
father has been attending to the needs of his son, Master
Bhuvan H. However, after recording the above findings, the
Family Court misdirected itself in according undue weight to the
wish and opinion of the ward. The Family Court further held
that, since the ward had lost his mother at a very young age,
he feels comfortable, safe, and secure in the care of the
maternal uncle, i.e., the respondents, and that his preference
to continue residing with them would be in his best interest.
8. On consideration of the evidence on record and the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties,
this Court finds that the appellant is willing to take custody of
his son and to guide and support him in shaping his career by
providing better educational opportunities and other comforts.
The respondents have not raised any serious objection to
handing over the custody of the ward to the appellant.
Notwithstanding the above, the Family Court has misdirected
itself by placing undue emphasis on the wish of the ward,
rather than assessing the matter in light of the paramount
consideration which is the welfare of the child.
-9-
MFA No. 1658 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 1598 of 2025
9. As the entire order of the Family Court rests substantially
on the wish of the ward, we deemed it appropriate to interact
in chambers with the appellant, respondent No.1, and the
ward-Master Bhuvan H. During the course of interaction, we
noticed certain relevant aspects concerning each of them.
9.1 Firstly, on interacting with the appellant, who is the father
of the ward, it emerged that both the appellant and his father
possess a background in mechanical engineering and are
engaged in their own business relating to machinery. The
appellant also has a steady source of rental income. Hence, we
find that the father is financially well placed, which would
enable him to support the ward's further education and career
development. During the interaction with the ward, it was
stated that he had chosen to pursue a Diploma in Mechanical
Engineering at Acharya Polytechnic College, Bengaluru. This
choice was initially objected to by the appellant, who had
advised the ward to join M.S. Ramaiah Polytechnic College. The
appellant explained that M.S. Ramaiah Polytechnic College is
located closer to the residence of the ward, whereas the college
opted by the ward is situated at a distance with inadequate
transport connectivity. The appellant further explained that his
objection was based on safety concerns, as the ward would be
- 10 -
MFA No. 1658 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 1598 of 2025
required to commute by motorcycle due to the lack of
convenient public transport. The appellant further stated that,
after advising his son not to use a motorcycle, he ultimately
consented to his admission to Acharya Polytechnic College and
paid the requisite fees thereafter. This situation has been
projected by the respondents as an instance of the father
obstructing the ward's education. However, on careful
consideration, we find no reason to disbelieve the explanation
offered by the father.
9.2 Secondly, on interacting with Master Bhuvan H., the
ward, we found him to be mature, possessing an independent
thought process and the ability to make certain decisions on his
own, though such decisions would require proper guidance and
supervision from his parent or guardians. When we enquired
with the ward regarding his willingness to reside with his
father, he did not express any reluctance. On the contrary, he
indicated his desire to join his father at the earliest. Upon being
asked when he proposed to do so, he stated cheerfully that he
would join his father immediately after completion of his
current semester examinations. With regard to his future
academic plans, the ward stated that upon completing his
Diploma in Mechanical Engineering, he intends to pursue a
- 11 -
MFA No. 1658 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 1598 of 2025
Bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering. He also
volunteered that the appellant has been assisting him in his
studies through video calls.
9.3 Thereafter, we interacted with respondent No.1, who
stated that he has no objection to the ward joining his father if
the ward so desires. When enquired about his financial position
and family circumstances, he stated that he has a daughter and
is also taking care of his mother. However, his financial
capacity to support the future academic career of Master
Bhuvan H. was not clearly established. It appears that
immediately after the death of the appellant's wife, the ward
was taken into the care of respondent Nos.1 and 2, who looked
after him during that period. It is also to be noted that at that
time, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were without children of their
own; however, they now have one child.
10. On consideration of the evidence on record and the
interaction held with the parties, we find that there exists no
serious dispute with regard to handing over the custody of
Master Bhuvan H. to the appellant. Even otherwise, the
appellant, being the father, is legally entitled to the custody of
his minor son. Having regard to the paramount consideration of
- 12 -
MFA No. 1658 of 2025
C/W MFA No. 1598 of 2025
the welfare of the child in all its facets, we are of the view that
the custody of Master Bhuvan H. would be appropriately placed
with the appellant. The appellant resides with his father and
has no other dependents. He is financially well placed to
provide for the ward's education and to guide him in his career
development. Further, during our interaction, Master Bhuvan H.
did not express any reluctance to join his father. On the
contrary, when real life situations and future uncertainties were
discussed with him, he willingly agreed to reside with his
father.
11. In view of our findings hereinabove, the aspect of
evidence on record is not discussed, as the same is not relevant
in the facts and circumstances of the case and, the judgments
cited are not required to be examined. Hence, we have not
made any observations on the judgments relied on by the
learned counsel for the appellant.
12. In the light of the above observations, we do not find it
necessary to delve into or re-appreciate the findings recorded
by the Family Court. Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeals in MFA No.1658/2025 and MFA No.1598/2025, are allowed.
- 13 -
MFA No. 1658 of 2025C/W MFA No. 1598 of 2025
(ii) The common order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in G & WC No.175/2019 and in G & WC No.260/2020, is set aside.
(iii) G & WC No.260/2020 is hereby allowed and G & WC No.175/2019 is dismissed.
(iv) Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are directed to handover the custody of Master Bhuvan H., to the appellant-father within two weeks.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV/DDU