[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Anil Alex Abraham vs Lara Mary Matthai on 9 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14089
WP No. 3954 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO. 3954 OF 2026 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
ANIL ALEX ABRAHAM
SON OF ABRAHAM CHANDY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 1112 AND
NO. 1113, 4TH MAIN, D BLOCK,
AECS LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560 037.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARUN GOVINDRAJ.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
LARA MARY MATTHAI
WIFE OF ANIL ALEX ABRAHAM,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 215,
JAL VAYU VIHAR,
Digitally signed KAMMANAHALLI,
by BENGALURU-560 043.
VIJAYALAKSHMI ...RESPONDENT
BN
Location: HIGH (BY SMT. GEETHA G MENON.,ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER
DATED 08.10.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU IN G AND WC NO. 226/2015, KEEPING
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 14 IN ABEYANCE AND IN TURN DIRECT
THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT. BENGALURU, TO
ADJUDICATE UPON INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 14 IN G AND WC NO.
226/2015 IN A TIME-BOUND MANNER (ANNEXURE-J AND G) AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:14089
WP No. 3954 of 2026
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
ORAL ORDER
The present writ petition is filed seeking a writ of
certiorari to quash the orders dated 08.10.2025 and
27.11.2025 passed in G&WC No.226/2015, whereby the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru ('Family Court'
for short) kept Interim Application No.14 in abeyance and to
direct the Family Court to adjudicate the said application and
dispose of the memo filed by the petitioner in pursuance of the
order dated 08.10.2025 respectively.
2. The petitioner herein is the husband and the
respondent herein is the wife.
3. The brief facts of the case are that:-
The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent
was solemnized on 22.08.2009 at Bengaluru. Out of the
wedlock, a daughter Aneira was born on 12.06.2012. Due to
matrimonial disputes between the parties, the respondent-wife
left the matrimonial home in May, 2014 along with the minor
child. The petitioner thereafter instituted G&WC No.226/2015
NC: 2026:KHC:14089
HC-KAR
before the Family Court at Bengaluru seeking custody and
guardianship of the minor child.
4. During the pendency of the proceedings, the
petitioner alleged that though he was exercising visitation
rights, the interaction between him and the minor child had
deteriorated and that the respondent was alienating the child
from him.
5. In that background, on 07.02.2025, the petitioner
filed Interim Application No.14 under Section 12 of the
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 ('the Act of 1890' for short),
read with Section 12 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking a
direction to refer the parties along with the minor child to the
Child Psychiatry Department of NIMHANS, Bengaluru, for
assessment of the mental and psychological condition of the
minor child vis-à-vis her relationship with the petitioner and for
submission of a report before the Family Court.
6. The respondent filed objections opposing the said
application contending that the minor child is nearing the age of
NC: 2026:KHC:14089
HC-KAR
13 years and was academically successful and emotionally
stable. According to the respondent, the application was filed
with malafide intention and would cause unnecessary distress
to the child. It was also contended that petitioner's sister was
associated with the NIMHANS and therefore, the choice of the
institution was not bonafide.
7. After hearing the parties, the learned Family Court
vide order dated 08.10.2025, kept the order on Interim
Application No.14 in abeyance and directed both parties to
suggest the name of a counselor for family counseling.
8. Subsequently, on 03.11.2025, the petitioner filed a
Memo before the Family Court praying that the minor child be
referred to the Child Psychiatry Department of NIMHANS, which
could assign a suitable doctor or counselor to handle the case.
The respondent filed her objections to the said Memo on
15.11.2025 opposing the said memo.
9. In the meantime, the petitioner states that during the
scheduled visitation on 08.11.2025, the minor child brought up
the issue of the petitioner's request for referral to NIMHANS
NC: 2026:KHC:14089
HC-KAR
and expressed her unwillingness to continue the visitation.
According to the petitioner, the child informed him that the
respondent had told her about the said request made before
the Court and asked the petitioner to withdraw the same. The
petitioner further states that the child indicated that she would
not attend future visitations, if the request was not withdrawn.
It is also alleged that thereafter, several visitations did not take
place either due to cancellation by the respondent or because
the child declined visitation.
10. Thereafter, pursuant to the direction issued by the
Family Court, both parties filed Memos on 19.11.2025
suggesting names of doctors, who were involved in psychiatry
and family therapy. The petitioner filed the said Memo without
prejudice to his rights and contentions in Interim Application
No.14. The matter was posted for orders on the said Memos on
27.11.2025.
11. By order dated 27.11.2025, the learned Family
Court disposed of the said Memos and directed the petitioner to
suggest the name of a family counselor, who is not attached to
any hospital or psychiatry department of any hospital. The
NC: 2026:KHC:14089
HC-KAR
Family Court further held that the pendency of the counseling
arrangement would not come in the way of disposing of the
main custody proceedings and posted the matter for final
arguments.
12. Being aggrieved by the order dated 08.10.2025
keeping Interim Application No.14 in abeyance and the order
dated 27.11.2025 disposing of the Memos and directing
suggestion of a counselor not attached to a hospital, as also the
non-adjudication of I.A.No.14, the petitioner has approached
this Court in the present writ petition.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
the Family Court has indicated that the pendency of Interim
Application No.14 would not come in the way of disposal of the
custody proceedings and that disposal of the custody
proceedings without adjudication of the said application would
cause grave prejudice to him. The professional report sought
through the said application would assist the Court in just and
fair adjudication of the custody dispute.
NC: 2026:KHC:14089
HC-KAR
14. It is further contended that if the custody
proceedings are concluded without such intervention, the
proposed counseling or evaluation would become a mere
formality as the professional would not be answerable to the
Court.
15. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side.
16. Having considered the contentions advanced, this
Court has carefully examined the material placed on record and
the sequence of events leading to filing of the present petition.
17. It is not in dispute that I.A.No.14 was filed on
07.02.2025 seeking professional assessment of the
psychological condition of the minor child and her relationship
with the petitioner. The Family Court, after hearing the parties,
passed an order on 08.10.2025 keeping the application open
and directing the parties to suggest the name of a counselor for
family counseling.
18. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Memo on
03.11.2025 seeking reference to the Child Psychiatry
Department of NIMHANS and the respondent filed objections on
NC: 2026:KHC:14089
HC-KAR
15.11.2025. Subsequently, both parties filed Memos on
19.11.2025 suggesting the names of certain Doctors
experienced in psychiatry and family therapy. By order dated
27.11.2025, the Family Court disposed of the said Memos and
directed the petitioner to suggest the name of a counselor, not
attached to any Hospital or Psychiatry Department, while also
observing that pendency of counseling would not prevent
disposal of the main petition.
19. The grievance of the petitioner is essentially that
the custody proceedings may be concluded without the benefit
of a professional report addressing the issues raised in
I.A.No.14.
20. In custody matters, the welfare of the minor child is
the paramount consideration. Professional counseling and
assessment may assist the Court in understanding the
dynamics between the child and the parents and in arriving at
an appropriate conclusion.
21. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the details of the counselor for family counseling have
NC: 2026:KHC:14089
HC-KAR
already been furnished before the Family Court. The said
submission is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for
the respondent.
22. In the present case, it is noticed that the Family
Court relying on the decision in the case of Chaitanya vs.
Soujanya produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner
wherein it was held that after interacting with the parties,
found that to facilitate interim visitation, referred parties and
child to NIMHANS for counseling.
23. The Family Court rightly observed that the minor
child was about 12 years and 10 months old i.e., nearing to 13
years, was sufficiently mature to express her views. It was
noted that during the chamber interaction held on 12.09.2025,
the child and the petitioner were advised to improve their
communication. The Family Court further observed that the
child's difficulty in interacting with her father appeared to arise
from issues in their relationship rather than any psychological
condition requiring psychiatric evaluation. Considering that the
child was in her pre-teen years, which is a stage of significant
emotional and social development, the Family Court was of the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14089
HC-KAR
view that family counseling would be a more appropriate first
step to improve communication and resolve conflicts, and
strengthen overall family dynamic. Therefore, the Family Court
directed the parties to suggest the name of a counselor and has
not rejected the request for counseling.
24. However, the petitioner's concern that the custody
proceedings may be concluded without the benefit of such a
report, requires to be addressed by ensuring that the
counseling process is completed expeditiously and the report is
placed before the Family Court before final adjudication of the
matter.
25. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court
considers it appropriate to issue directions to ensure
expeditious completion of the counseling process and the
disposal of the main proceedings.
26. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:-
ORDER
(i) The Family Court is directed to entrust
the warrant to the counselor for submission of his
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:14089
HC-KAR
report within a period of fifteen days from the
date of receipt of the warrant.
(ii) Learned counsel for the parties are
directed to file their respective Memos indicating
the submissions and questions to be placed
before the counselor.
(iii) The counselor shall consider and
answer the questions submitted by the learned
counsel for the parties and submit his report as
stipulated in the warrant.
(iv) The Family Court shall proceed with
hearing of the arguments of the counsel upon
receipt of the counselor's report, and thereafter,
dispose of the custody proceedings within a
period as expeditiously as possible.
Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with the
above directions.
SD/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
MH/-
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38
