Smt Archana Pradhan vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 6874 Kant

                                            W.P.H.C No.79/2023

                                1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

                             PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
                                                                 R
                               AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

                   W.P.H.C NO.79 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

SMT. ARCHANA PRADHAN
W/O MR. RAJENDRA KUMAR PRADHAN
D/O MR. MURALIDHARA PRADHAN
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDENT OF WITTERINGSTRASSE 1
45130 ESSEN, GERMANY

PRESENTLY AT BANGALORE
HOLDER OF INDIAN PASSPORT
NUMBER:M3158975
ISSUED ON 27.10.2014 AND
VALID UP TO 26.10.2024
MOBILE NO. +49 15145754107                      ....PETITIONER

(BY SMT. S. SUSHEELA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
    SHRI. H. SOMANATHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
       DEPARTMENT OF HOMES AND
       EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
       VIDHANA SOUDHA
       BANGALORE-560 001
                                          W.P.H.C No.79/2023

                             2

2.   THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
     BENGALURU CITY NO.2
     ALI ASKAR ROAD
     VASANTH NAGAR
     BENGALURU-560 051

3.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
     DCP SOUTH, SOUTH END CIRCLE
     GUPTA LAYOUT, KANAKAPURA
     BASAVANAGUDI
     BENGALURU
     KARNATAKA

4.   THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
     NO.5, MILLERS ROAD
     BENGALURU -560 052

5.   THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
     WH6Q+ P2C, 21ST MAIN RD
     R.K.COLONY, 2ND PHASE
     J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU
     KARNATAKA-560 078

6.   MR. RAJENDRA KUMAR PRADHAN
     S/O MR. PRASANNA PRADHAN
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
     AT PRESENT TEMPORARILY
     RESIDENT OF #304, 3RD FLOOR
     IRIS SURYA APARTMENT
     J.P.NAGAR, 7TH PHASE
     BANGALORE-560 076
     (EMAIL: [email protected]
     MOBILE:+ 9196502-60680)

7.   MR. PRASANNA KUMAR PRADHAN
     S/O LATE SRIPATI PRADHAN
     AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
     PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
     POST OFFICE KURUDOL
     P.S.NALCO NAGAR

     PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
     #304, 3RD FLOOR
     IRIS SURYA APARTMENT
     NEXT TO ARADHANA SCHOOL
                                                W.P.H.C No.79/2023

                                3

     J.P.NAGAR 7TH PHASE
     BANGALORE-560 076

8.   MASTER ADVIK PRADHAN
     (MINOR, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS)
     REP. BY THE FATHER DETENUE
     S/O MR. RAJENDRA KUMAR PRADHAN
     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
     S/O MR. PRASANNA PRADHAN

     AT PRESENT TEMPORARILY
     RESIDENT OF # 304, 3RD FLOOR
     IRIS SURYA APARTMENT
     J.P.NAGAR, 7TH PHASE
     BANGALORE-560 076
     EMAIL:[email protected]
     MOBILE:+9196502-60680)                       ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5;
    SHRI. S. KARTHIK KIRAN, ADVOCATE FOR
    SHRI. KAPIL DIXIT, ADVOCATE FOR R6 & R7)

     THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
HABEAS CORPUS DIRECTING RESPONDENTS NO.6 AND 7 TO SECURE
THE RELEASE OF ADVIK PRADHAN AND TRANSFER HIS PHYSICAL
CUSTODY TO THE PETITIONER TO ENABLE THE PETITIONER TO ACT IN
THE BEST AND PARAMOUNT INTEREST OF THE CHILD INCLUDING TO
REGULATE   HIS   SCHOOL/EDUCATION   MATTERS       AND   ISSUE   ANY
APPROPRIATE WRIT/ORDER/DIRECTION WHEREBY RESPONDENT NO.6 IS
DIRECTED TO ENSURE SAFE RETURN OF ADVIK PRADHAN TO GERMANY
AND ETC


     THIS WPHC, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS
ON 22.09.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS
DAY, P.S. DINESH KUMAR, J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
                                                   W.P.H.C No.79/2023

                                 4


                               ORDER

This writ petition by the mother of a minor, Master Advik

Pradhan, aged 9 years is presented with following prayers:

a) Issue a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing respondent nos. 6 and 7 to secure the release of Advik Pradhan and transfer his physical custody to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to act in the best and paramount interest of the child including to regulate his school education matters.

b) Issue any appropriate Writ Order/ Direction whereby Respondent no. 6 is directed to ensure safe return of Advik Pradhan to Germany.

c) Issue any other appropriate Writ. Order or Direction to ensure the compliance of the German Family Court, Essen order dated 28.07.2023 Annexure (G) which is passed in the best interest and welfare of Advik Pradhan.

d) Direct respondent No. 1 to 5 to provide all necessary aid, assistance and effective implementation of the directions of this Hon'ble Court in securing the presence of Respondent nos. 6 & 7 before this Hon'ble Court.

e) Pass any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.

W.P.H.C No.79/2023

2. Heard Smt. Susheela, learned Senior Advocate for

the petitioner and Shri. Karthik Kiran learned Advocate for

respondents No.6 and 7.

3. Brief facts of the case are, petitioner-Archana and

respondent No.6-Rajendra Kumar Pradhan1 got married on

08.04.2010 in Orissa. Advik was born on 11.12.2013. Both

husband and wife are IT professionals. In June 2016, they

moved to Bangkok and both were employed there. In 2022,

Archana and Rajendra decided to move to Germany for their

better career prospects.

4. On 19.07.2023, on the pretext of taking Advik to a

park, Rajendra boarded a flight to Dubai en route India.

Rajendra did not receive Archana's phone calls. Archana

informed the local authorities in Germany, but due to the

tedious process there was no timely response.

5. On 24.07.2023, Archana sent an e-mail to the

Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru complaining inter alia that

'Rajendra' for short W.P.H.C No.79/2023

on 19.07.2023, Rajendra had boarded a flight with Advik and

rendered himself for action under IPC as well as Hague

Convention on Child Abduction; and requested to register an

FIR. She also approached the Karnataka Human Rights

Commission and Commission for Protection of Child Rights.

6. Archana got issued a legal notice dated 22.07.2023

calling upon Rajendra to return to Germany forthwith along

with Advik and to restore child's custody to her.

7. On 28.07.2023, Archana approached the Family

Court in Germany and obtained an ex-parte interim order with

regard to place of child's residence and the school.

Subsequently, on 10.08.2023, she has presented this Writ

Petition.

8. Smt. Susheela, for the petitioner, contended that:

 in a case of this nature Courts will have to protect

child's interest and welfare. The child was

studying in a school in Germany and he has been

removed illegally by the husband. The child has W.P.H.C No.79/2023

its intimate contact with the environment in

Germany;

 before shifting to Germany, Advik was studying in

Bangkok. Both husband and wife had taken a

conscious decision to move to Germany for their

career prospects and better education of Advik as

education standards in Germany are far superior

when compared with Thailand;

 Advik is aged 9 years and requires the care, love

and affection of both parents. Rajendra has

stealthily removed Advik from Germany. The

jurisdictional Court in Germany has ruled that the

right to determine child's place of residence and

school was transferred to mother.

 As per the settled law, the Child has to be

returned to the country of his 'habitual residence'

on the principle of 'Comity of Courts' for the

determination of child's best interest;

W.P.H.C No.79/2023

 petitioner is the natural guardian and therefore,

Advik should be handed over to her as per

Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,

1956.

 after the Writ Petition was filed, Rajendra had

moved to Bangkok along with the child.

9. With the above submissions and placing reliance on

the authorities on the point, Smt. Susheela prayed for

allowing this Writ Petition.

10. Opposing the Writ Petition, Shri. Karthik, for

respondents No.6 and 7, contended that:

 Advik was born in 2013. In 2016, parents moved

to Bangkok and set up their matrimonial home. In

January 2022, they moved to Germany for their

career prospects;

 Rajendra has strong proof about Archana's

infidelity after they moved to Germany. As per his

information, in matrimonial cases, Courts in W.P.H.C No.79/2023

Germany, sometimes grant child's custody to the

State. Hence, keeping in view the child's welfare

in mind he had initially brought the child to India.

Before going to Germany, Advik was studying in

an international school in Thailand for about four

years and well acclimatized to that environment.

Therefore, Rajendra requested his earlier

employee for a placement in Thailand and shifted

to Bangkok. Advik has been admitted in the very

same school where he was earlier studying and

he is happily attending the school;

 Rajendra's old parents reside in Orissa and

require his assistance. Bangkok is a nearer

destination when compared to Essen in Germany;

 Rajendra is prepared to accept Archana despite

her affairs in Germany provided she is prepared

to relocate to Bangkok or India;

 as per Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and

Guardianship Act, 1956, father is the natural W.P.H.C No.79/2023

guardian of a child aged more than five years.

Thus the custody of Advik with Rajendra is not

illegal and this Writ Petition is not maintainable;

 welfare of the child is of paramount importance.

Advik is more happy in Bangkok.

11. We have carefully considered rival contentions and

perused the records.

12. This is case involving a child aged nine years

shifted from Germany to Thailand. Both parents are Indians

hailing from Orissa. The child was born in 2013. Parents

moved to Bangkok in 2016. As per the list of dates and events

filed before us, Advik was admitted in Kindergarten in

Bangkok in August 2017. He studied in Bangkok till December

2021. Thereafter, his parents moved to Germany in January

2022. In Germany, Advik was admitted to Sternschule School

in March 2022. According to Archana, Rajendra and Advik flew

from Germany on 19.07.2023 for Dubai en route India.

W.P.H.C No.79/2023

13. Smt. Susheela, has placed reliance on following

authorities:

i. Nithya Anand Raghavan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

and another2, wherein it is held that it is settled legal

position that the concept of forum convenience has no

place in wardship jurisdiction. Further, the efficacy of

principle of comity of Courts as applicable to India in

respect of child custody matters has been delineated in

several decisions. In the said authority, Dhanwanti Joshi

Vs. Madhav Unde3 has been referred. In that case, it is

held that about 45 Countries are parties to Hague

Convention of 1980 on 'Civil Aspects of International Child

Abduction' and India is not a signatory. Under the

Convention, a child below 16 years who is wrongfully

removed or retained in another contracting State, could

be returned to the Country from which the child had been

removed by application to a Central Authority. Under

Article 16 of the Convention, if in the process, the issue

(2017) 8 SCC 454

(1998)1 SCC 112 (paras 28 to 33) W.P.H.C No.79/2023

goes before a Court, the Convention prohibits the Court

from going into the merits of the welfare of the child.

It is further held in Nithya Anand Raghavan, as

follows:

"40. The Court has noted that India is not yet a signatory to the Hague Convention of 1980 on "Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction". As regards the non-Convention countries, the law is that the court in the country to which the child has been removed must consider the question on merits bearing the welfare of the child as of paramount importance and reckon the order of the foreign court as only a factor to be taken into consideration, unless the court thinks it fit to exercise summary jurisdiction in the interests of the child and its prompt return is for its welfare. In exercise of summary jurisdiction, the court must be satisfied and of the opinion that the proceedings instituted before it was in close proximity and filed promptly after the child was removed from his/her native state and brought within its territorial jurisdiction, the child has not gained roots here and further that it will be in the child's welfare to return to his native state because of the difference in language spoken or social customs and contacts to which he/she has been accustomed or such other tangible reasons. In such a case the court need not resort to an elaborate inquiry into the merits of the paramount welfare of the child but leave that inquiry to the foreign court by directing return of the child. Be it noted that in exceptional cases the court can still refuse to issue direction to return the child to the native state and more particularly in spite of a pre-existing order of the foreign court in that behalf, if it is W.P.H.C No.79/2023

satisfied that the child's return may expose him to a grave risk of harm. This means that the courts in India, within whose jurisdiction the minor has been brought must "ordinarily" consider the question on merits, bearing in mind the welfare of the child as of paramount importance whilst reckoning the pre- existing order of the foreign court if any as only one of the factors and not get fixated therewith. In either situation - be it a summary inquiry or an elaborate inquiry - the welfare of the child is of paramount consideration. Thus, while examining the issue the courts in India are free to decline the relief of return of the child brought within its jurisdiction, if it is satisfied that the child is now settled in its new environment or if it would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable position or if the child is quire mature and objects to its return. We are in respectful agreement with the aforementioned exposition."

(emphasis supplied)

(ii) Rajeswari Chandrashekar Ganesh Vs. The State of Tamil

Nadu and others4.

In this case, adverting to Nithya Anand Raghavan, the

Apex Court has held that the object and scope of a writ of

habeas corpus in the context of a claim relating to custody of

a minor child was to ascertain whether the custody of child is

unlawful and illegal and whether the welfare of the child

2022 Live Law SC 605 W.P.H.C No.79/2023

requires that his present custody should be changed and the

child be handed over to the care and custody of any other

person. We may record that in Nithya Anand Raghavan5, it is

held that the High Court must examine at the threshold

whether the minor is in lawful or unlawful custody of another

person. After noting that the minor child, in that case was in

the custody of biological mother, it was held that the custody

of minor was lawful. In the instant case, it is not in dispute

that custody of the child is with the biological father. As per

Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956,

custody of a male child aged above 5 years with the father, is

lawful.

14. In Rajeswari, the Apex Court has also considered

the following authorities of the Foreign Courts:

"87. The question as to how the court would determine what is best in the interest of the child was considered In Re:McGrath (Infants), [1893] 1 Ch. 143 C.A., and it was observed by Lindley L.J., as follows:

"...The dominant matter for the consideration of the Court is the welfare of the child. But the welfare of a child is not to

Para 47 W.P.H.C No.79/2023

be measured by money only, nor by physical comfort only. The word welfare must be taken in its widest sense. The moral and religious welfare of the child must be considered as well as its physical well-being. Nor can the ties of affection be disregarded."

88. The issue as to the welfare of the child again arose In re "O" (An Infant), [1965] 1 Ch.23 C.A., where Harman L.J., stated as follows:

"It is not, I think, really in dispute that in all cases the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child; but that, or course, does not mean you add up shillings and pence, or situation or prospects, or even religion. What you look at is the whole background of the child's life, and the first consideration you have to take into account when you are looking at his welfare is : who are his parents and are they ready to do their duty?"

15. The Apex Court has also referred to American

jurisprudence wherein, it is held as follows:

90. In the context of consideration of an application by a parent seeking custody of a child through the medium of a Habeas Corpus proceeding, it has been stated in American Jurisprudence, 2nd Edn. Vol. 39 as follows :

"...An application by a parent, through the medium of a habeas corpus proceeding, for custody of a child is addressed to the discretion of the court, and custody may be withheld from the parent where it is made clearly to appear that by reason of W.P.H.C No.79/2023

unfitness for the trust or of other sufficient causes the permanent interests of the child would be sacrificed by a change of custody. In determining whether it will be for the best interest of a child to award its custody to the father or mother, the court may properly consult the child, if it has sufficient judgment."

93. In the American Jurisprudence, Vol. 39, Second Edition, Para 148 at pages 280-281, the same principle is enunciated in the following words:

"..... a court is not bound to deliver a child into the custody of any claimant or of any person, but should, in the exercise of a sound discretion, after careful consideration of the facts, leave it in such custody as its welfare at the time appears to require."

(emphasis supplied)

(iii) Vasudha Sethi and Ors. Vs. Kiran V. Bhaskar and

Anr.6

In this case, the Apex Court has held as follows:

33. A question was raised whether the High Court was justified in passing an order directing the appellant no.1 to return to USA along with the minor child on or before a particular date. The issue of custody of a minor, whether in a petition seeking habeas corpus or in a custody petition, has to be decided on the touchstone of the principle that the welfare of a minor is of paramount consideration. The Courts, in such proceedings, cannot decide where the parents should reside as it will affect the right to

AIR 2022 SC 476 W.P.H.C No.79/2023

privacy of the parents. We may note here that a writ Court while dealing with the issue of habeas corpus cannot direct a parent to leave India and to go abroad with the child. If such orders are passed against the wishes of a parent, it will offend her/his right to privacy. A parent has to be given an option to go abroad with the child. It ultimately depends on the parent concerned to decide and opt for giving a company to the minor child for the sake of the welfare of the child. It will all depend on the priorities of the concerned parent. In this case, on a conjoint reading of clauses (i) to (iii) of paragraph 55 of the judgment, it is apparent that such an option has been given to the appellant no.1.

(emphasis supplied)

16. Shri. Karthik, learned Advocate for the respondent-

husband has also relied upon Nithya Anand Raghavan.

17. We may record that to a pointed query with regard

to Hague Convention of 1980, learned Advocates on both

sides have filed a Memo stating that India is not a signatory

to the said Convention.

18. It is the common case of both parents that in

2016, they had moved from India to Bangkok for their better

career prospects. Advik was admitted to the Kindergarten and

the Primary School in Bangkok between August, 2017 and W.P.H.C No.79/2023

December, 2021. In January, 2022, parents took a conscious

decision and moved to Germany.

19. According to Rajendra, he was compelled to leave

Germany because of his wife's conduct and apprehension that

in matrimonial cases, as per German Laws, sometimes, the

State takes over the custody of the minor child.

20. After hearing the learned Advocates on both sides,

keeping in view the welfare of the child in mind, we initially

heard the parties in the chamber on 13.09.2023. Rajendra

mentioned that despite some incidents of infidelity in

Germany, he was prepared to take Archana back, if she was

prepared to relocate to Bangkok or India. He also submitted

that he shall make efforts to get her a job in the same

Company in which he is working in Bangkok. Archana was

resolute in her view and desired to stay in Germany only. She

justified her view contending that both she and Rajendra had

taken a conscious decision to move to Germany for better

prospects. According to her, pupils in Thailand travelled to W.P.H.C No.79/2023

Germany for higher studies. The standard of education in

Germany is very high. A child who moves from Germany to

Thailand is admitted in a higher class whereas, child who

moves from Thailand to Germany is admitted in a lower

grade. She submitted that Advik was studying in Grade-3 in

Germany and he has been now admitted in Grade-5 in

Thailand. She also submitted she may not easily get a job in

Bangkok commensurate with her educational qualification.

21. Advik was clear in his mind to stay in Bangkok.

22. After the first chamber hearing, we suggested to

the parents and their Advocates to consider an amicable

resolution under Section 89 of the CPC. On the next date of

hearing, Shri. Karthik relied upon Archana Vs. Satyapal Singh7

wherein, it is held that Court can take help of Psychiatrist to

ascertain the psychological impact, which might occur due to

change in custody of child. Smt. Susheela opposed for

evaluation of the child by a Psychiatrist contending inter alia

that it is therapeutic in nature and cannot be done overnight.

MANU/UC/1003/2019 W.P.H.C No.79/2023

Further, it is not the right time for psychological evaluation. In

order to respect the stand taken by the mother, we thought it

appropriate to interact with the parents and the child again in

the chambers. In the second Chamber hearing8, there was no

change in their respective stands taken by the parents.

23. We had a long interaction with Advik in presence of

learned Advocates on both side, but without parents. At the

outset, he requested us to end these proceedings. He

mentioned to us that he is very familiar with the School in

Bangkok, all his classmates are his good friends, 12 out of 13

children in his class are Indians. He is taught Foreign

Language, Library, Art, Mathematics, English, Science, PSHE

(Human Values), Social Studies and Physical Education in his

School in Bangkok.

24. Sharing his experience in Germany, at the outset,

he stated that he had a scar on his foot because he was

constantly bullied and kicked by one of his schoolmates.

According to him, his class consisted of 29 pupils and only 3

Dated 22.09.2023 W.P.H.C No.79/2023

out of them including him, were Indians. He stated that many

teachers did not know English. Even the Parents-Teachers

meeting required a translator. In substance, we gathered that

Advik was more happy and felt 'at home' in his School in

Bangkok.

25. In our lengthy interaction with Advik we found that

his intelligence is above average. He has a YouTube channel

of his own by the name 'cyberdevgames'. He uses his iPad

with ease. He also mentioned that he was self-learning Martial

Arts. We may also incidentally mention that when we offered

him a chocolate, he refused on the ground that he was

'lactose intolerant'. On an overall assessment, we are of the

considered opinion that Advik is a brilliant child with an high

intelligent quotient and capable of exercising options wisely.

He has good comprehension of contemporary affairs in the

world and very resolute in his views. He expressed in no

uncertain terms that he desired to reside with his father in

Bangkok.

W.P.H.C No.79/2023

26. In the authorities cited before us, it is mainly held

that the welfare of the child is of paramount importance.

For considering the factum of interest of the child, the Court

must take into account all the attending circumstances and

totality of situation on case to case basis9.

27. It is relevant to note that Rajendra was very liberal

in his offers and flexible to consider alternative options, if any,

whereas, Archana was steadfast in her view and expressed a

solitary option to remain in Germany and sought for Advik's

custody. Therefore, in our considered view, Archana is more

keen on her career prospects at Germany than the welfare of

the child.

28. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that

German Court has transferred the right to decide the place of

residence and school in Archana's favour. On this aspect, it

is relevant to note that it is an ex parte order passed by the

German Court whilst child was in India. The Court in

Nithya Anand Raghavan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors (para 51) W.P.H.C No.79/2023

Germany did not have the benefit of interacting with the child.

In contradistinction, as recorded hereinabove, this Court has

conducted two chamber hearings and had a lengthy

interaction with the child. In view of the settled position of

law in India that the welfare of the child is paramount, for

reasons recorded hereinabove and based on the interaction

we had with the child, we are of the considered opinion that

Advik is happy in his present environment in Bangkok with his

father and hence, the contention with regard to the ex-parte

order passed by the German Court is noted only to be

rejected.

29. Archana being the biological mother must be

entitled for visitation rights. She may communicate with

Rajendra on this aspect and both parents may decide the

mutually convenient dates, period and the place of visit. As of

now, she may visit Bangkok as and when required after giving

advance notice, and both parents and the child may spend

time during school vacation either in Thailand or India as may W.P.H.C No.79/2023

be decided. Parents shall also at liberty to choose any other

destination taking into consideration the desire of the child.

30. In the light of above discussion, we pass the

following:

ORDER

I. Writ Petition is disposed of with following directions:

(i) The custody of minor child, Master Advik shall

remain with his father with place of residence as

Bangkok and it shall be subject to the orders of

Jurisdictional Family Court, if any, in future.

(ii) Rajendra, the sixth respondent shall execute a

bond for Rs.10,00,000/- with two sureties for the like

sum to the satisfaction of the learned Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore to ensure his

presence in India along with his minor child, Advik,

in case required, pursuant to any order passed by any

Court in India.

(iii) Rajendra shall file an affidavit before this Court

stating that he shall have no objection for W.P.H.C No.79/2023

impoundment of his passport, in case he fails to appear

pursuant to any order passed by any Court in India.

(iv) Petitioner shall have visitation rights to meet

Master Advik once in three months with advance notice

of 15 days. She shall also be entitled to spend time

during School vacation period of Master Advik in

Thailand, India or any other destination by mutual

consent of parties. The duration and place may also be

fixed as per mutual convenience of parties.

(v) Petitioner shall also have right to talk with

Master Advik on phone/video call twice a week on days

to be mutually agreed by the parties as per

convenience of the child. Rajendra, the sixth

respondent shall facilitate such telephonic/video

conversation. Similarly, if Master Advik desires to talk

on phone/video conference with his mother, Rajendra,

the sixth respondent shall make necessary

arrangements after intimating the petitioner in

advance.

W.P.H.C No.79/2023

II. Rajendra, the sixth respondent, shall be at liberty to

leave Bangalore along with Master Advik after complying with

the directions at I (ii) and (iii) above and file an affidavit

reporting compliance.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SPS