Mr. Anoop Sundaram vs Mrs Amruthaveni Vishwanathan
2026 Latest Caselaw 2758 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Mr. Anoop Sundaram vs Mrs Amruthaveni Vishwanathan on 27 March, 2026

                          -1-
                                    WP No. 24492 of 2025



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                         BEFORE
       THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
       WRIT PETITION NO.24492 OF 2025 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:

MR. ANOOP SUNDARAM
S/O V. SUNDARAM
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT: NO.310,
J.C BLOCK,
M J LIFESTYLE ASTYLIEN
OFF HOSA ROAD,
CENTRAL JAIL ROAD
CHOODASANDRA
BANGALORE,
KARNATAKA 560 099.
                                         ...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. RASHMI GEORGE.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

MRS. AMRUTHAVENI VISHWANATHAN
D/O B. VALSALAKUMARI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT: THIRUMALABHAGOM PO,
KUTHIATHODE, ALAPPUZHA,
KERALA 688 540.
                                         ...RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. ASHA R.,ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER DATED 06/06/2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, IN THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS IA NO. 6 IN G AND WC. NO. 115 /2023 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE -A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 17.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO


                          CAV ORDER

This writ petition is directed against the order dated

06.06.2025 passed on I.A.No.6 in G & WC No.115/2023 by the

Court of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural

District at Bengaluru ('the Family Court' for short), whereby the

application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 10 of the

Family Courts Act and Section 151 of CPC, seeking interim

custody of the minor child, came to be partly allowed.

2. The petitioner-husband/respondent-wife herein is

the petitioner/respondent before the Family Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that:-

The petitioner and the respondent are the husband and

wife and are parties to G & WC No.115/2023. Out of their

wedlock, minor son, Master Ankit, was born on 21.10.2014 and

is presently aged about 11 years. It is the case of the petitioner

that the respondent left the matrimonial home in August 2020

and shifted to her mother's residence along with the minor child

without any justifiable cause. It is further stated that despite

efforts made by the petitioner between August 2020 and

December 2020 to bring about reconciliation, the respondent

remained unwilling, particularly when petitioner failed to

migrate to Sweden and provide high standard of life to

European standards to which the petitioner declined and

resulted in filing of G & WC petition.

4. The petitioner, who is employed as a Principal

Electrical Design Engineer at INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES,

Bangalore, earning more than Rs.1,50,000/- per month,

asserts that he has continued to provide financial support by

arranging rental accommodation, paying rent, and meeting all

expenses of the respondent and the child. It is alleged that

despite such support, the respondent restricted access to the

child and demanded monies even for limited visitation. It is also

stated that the respondent travelled to Dubai in February 2021

along with the child when the child was aged about 7 years,

and certain allegations have been made regarding her

association with one Mr. Sandeep Nair. It is further stated that

the respondent has strained relations with her own mother and

sister.

5. It is further the case of the petitioner that the

respondent shifted residence again, for which he arranged

alternate accommodation and admitted the child to Ebenezer

International School in Kerala by bearing all expenses. Despite

the same, the petitioner was allegedly denied access to the

child both at the residence and at the school. The respondent,

though having entered appearance through counsel, who is also

representing her in M.C.No.355/2020, has not filed objections

either to the main petition or to any interlocutory applications.

6. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1 on 21.12.2023 seeking

visitation rights, on which no orders have been passed till date.

On the same day, I.A.No.2 was filed seeking to restrain the

respondent from removing the child from the jurisdiction of the

Court, and the Family Court, by order dated 19.10.2024,

granted such restraint. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.6

on 04.01.2025 seeking interim custody of the minor child. It is

not in dispute that the respondent did not file objections nor

advance arguments in respect of the said application.

7. The Family Court, by the impugned order dated

06.06.2025, after noticing that the respondent had not filed

objections, proceeded to consider the application on the basis

of the pleadings and affidavit of the petitioner. The Family

Court observed that the relationship between the parties and

the birth of the minor child on 21.10.2014 were not in dispute,

and that the child, a school-going boy, was in the custody of

the respondent. The Family Court further observed that the

allegations made by the petitioner required trial and that no

conclusive finding could be recorded at that stage.

8. The Family Court also observed that due to personal

disputes between the parties, the child should not be deprived

of the love and affection of either parent, and that the father

ought not to be denied such opportunity. In the absence of

objections from the respondent, no strong reasons were placed

on record to reject the application in entirety. However, taking

into consideration the present education of the child and the

necessity of adjudication of allegations through trial, the Family

Court granted interim custody till disposal of the petition.

9. Accordingly, the Family Court partly allowed

I.A.No.6 and granted custody of the minor child to the

petitioner on every Sunday and public holidays from 10:00 AM

to 8:00 PM, with directions regarding handing over and return

of the child. The petitioner contends that the said arrangement

amounts only to extended visitation and not meaningful

custody.

10. It is further the grievance of the petitioner that

upon attempting to secure compliance of the order dated

06.06.2025, he came to know from the Memo of Facts filed in

M.C.No.355/2020 that the respondent had shifted to

Trivandrum, Kerala, along with the minor child, allegedly in

violation of the order dated 19.10.2024. It is also stated that

the petitioner has not seen the child for approximately 20

months.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-

husband contends that the order is cryptic and non-speaking,

and that the Family Court has failed to consider the pleadings,

submissions, and materials placed on record. It is further

contended that the Family Court has not taken into account the

conduct of the respondent in not filing objections to the

application despite entering appearance and contesting

proceedings in MC No.355/2020. It is also urged that the sole

reasoning assigned by the Family Court, namely, consideration

of the present education of the child and the need for trial, is

insufficient to deny interim custody, particularly in the absence

of any opposition from the respondent. The petitioner further

contends that he, being the natural guardian under Section 6 of

the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, is entitled to custody

and is willing to bear all expenses for the child's education and

welfare.

12. The petitioner has also raised contentions regarding

alleged parental alienation, contending that the respondent has

been influencing the child against him and denying him

meaningful access, which, according to the petitioner, is

detrimental to the welfare of the child. It is further contended

that the child, aged about 11 years, is at a formative stage and

is entitled to the care and affection of both parents. It is also

contended that the respondent, by allegedly removing the child

to Trivandrum, Kerala, has violated the order dated

19.10.2024, and that continued denial of access would result in

estrangement between the father and the child, adversely

affecting the child's welfare. The petitioner further expresses

apprehension that attempts may be made to falsely implicate

him if he seeks to meet the child.

13. The respondent has filed statement of objections

contending that the petitioner has challenged the impugned

order dated 06.06.2025 passed on I.A.No.6 in G & WC

No.115/2023, while also seeking expanded interim custody of

the minor child during all weekends and 50% of vacations and

festivals. It is stated that the petitioner had earlier instituted

M.C.No.355/2020 under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu

Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage solemnized on

29.03.2012 at Sri Krishna Temple, Mahe, Puducherry, and

thereafter filed G & WC No.115/2023 under the Guardians and

Wards Act, which proceedings, according to the respondent, are

initiated only to harass her and the minor child.

14. The respondent further contends that she is a

B.Tech graduate who was employed as an Assistant Engineer

Trainee in the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, and had

resigned from her Government employment to relocate to

Bengaluru after marriage, sacrificing her career prospects to

preserve the matrimonial relationship. It is her case that she

made sincere efforts to maintain cordial relations and discharge

her responsibilities as a dutiful wife and daughter-in-law,

including taking care of the petitioner's mother and

grandmother who were suffering from serious medical

conditions. However, she alleges that she was subjected to

continuous mental and physical cruelty by the petitioner, whose

conduct was erratic and emotionally unstable. Further, the

petitioner was undergoing treatment for severe anxiety and

depression at NIMHANS for over five years, which fact was not

disclosed at the time of marriage and that his condition

contributed to the strained matrimonial relationship.

15. It is further contended that during pregnancy, the

respondent was not provided adequate support and was

burdened with household responsibilities, including care of the

petitioner's ailing family members, and was even subjected to

pressure to terminate the pregnancy. The respondent alleges

that the petitioner exhibited unreasonable suspicion regarding

her character, falsely accusing her of extramarital relationships,

including with one Mr. Sandeep Nair, which she categorically

denies, stating that he is only a family friend. It is further

stated that due to continuous abuse and hostile environment,

the respondent was compelled to shift to her maternal home in

order to safeguard her well-being and that of the minor child,

though she made attempts at reconciliation, which were

unsuccessful.

16. The respondent further contends that she has been

the primary caregiver of the minor child and has ensured his

overall development. It is stated that the minor child has

excelled in academics and extracurricular activities, having

participated in several sports and competitions across cities

including Hyderabad, Chennai, Bengaluru, and Kochi, and has

- 10 -

achieved distinction as a top-ranked speedcuber. It is further

submitted that she relocated to Trivandrum, Kerala in April

2025 upon securing employment as a primary school teacher in

an International Baccalaureate school, which enabled better

educational opportunities for the child at minimal cost. Such

relocation was necessitated by financial constraints and was

effected prior to the impugned order dated 06.06.2025.

17. The respondent further submits that the petitioner

has been largely absent in the day-to-day life of the minor child

and that his mental condition and alleged temperamental issues

have instilled fear in the child. It is contended that granting

overnight or extended custody to the petitioner would

adversely affect the welfare of the minor child. The respondent

asserts that she has single-handedly taken care of the child's

physical, emotional, and educational needs, and that the

petitioner is not in a position to provide a stable and safe

environment.

18. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side.

19. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the

parties and on perusal of the material on record, this Court

finds that certain foundational facts are not in dispute, namely,

the marital relationship between the parties, the birth of the

- 11 -

minor child on 21.10.2014, the pendency of G & WC

No.115/2023, and that the minor child is presently in the

custody of the respondent-mother and pursuing his education.

It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had filed I.A. No.6

before the Family Court under Section 12 of the Guardians and

Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 10 of the Family Courts Act

and Section 151 of CPC seeking interim custody of the minor

child, and the Family Court, by the impugned order, has

granted limited interim custody of the minor son, Master Ankit.

on every Sunday and public holidays of the school from 10.00

AM to 8.00 PM till disposal of the G & WC petition.

20. Insofar as the grievance urged in the present writ

petition is concerned, though the petitioner seeks enlargement

of custodial rights, including custody during weekends and for

50% of school vacations and festivals, it is to be noticed that

such reliefs were not specifically sought before the Family Court

in I.A.No.6. The scope of consideration before the Family Court

was confined to the prayer for interim custody alone. In that

view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that

such reliefs, not having been sought before the Family Court,

would not be appropriate to examine for the first time in the

present petition under supervisory jurisdiction.

- 12 -

21. Nevertheless, having regard to the paramount

consideration of the welfare of the minor child and the

necessity of ensuring meaningful access to both parents, this

Court deems it appropriate to reserve liberty to the petitioner

to approach the Family Court by filing an appropriate

application seeking modification or enlargement of

visitation/custodial arrangements, including custody during

school vacations and other appropriate periods. If such an

application is filed, the Family Court shall consider and dispose

of the same as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with

law, bearing in mind the welfare of the child and the settled

principles governing visitation and shared parenting.

22. In view of the above, the writ petition stands

disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the

Family Court by filing appropriate application seeking interim

custody of the child during all weekends and 50% of all the

vacations and festivals. If such an application is filed, the

Family Court shall consider in accordance with the Child Access

& Custody Guidelines Parenting Plan 2025 by the Hon'ble High

Court at Culcutta and dispose of the same as expeditiously as

possible, in accordance with law.

- 13 -

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the

liberty as stated above.

SD/-

(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

bnv