[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shri Mayur Nayak vs Smt H Aparna Pai on 27 March, 2026
-1-
WP No. 35911 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.35911 OF 2025 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. MAYUR NAYAK
SON OF SHRI A. RAGHUPATHI NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MF 1/2,
B.D.A. FLATS, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560 008.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. GEETHA DEVI M.P.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. H. APARNA PAI
DAUGHTER OF SHRI H. NARASIMHA PAI,
WIFE OF SHRIMAYUR NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.73,
MIG NITYANAND,
KHB COLONY, 17TH 'F' MAIN,
5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU-560 095.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA S.K.,ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN G
AND WC NO.349 OF 2022 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU AND TO MODIFY
THE ORDER DATED 26.09.2025 ON I.A.NO.12 IN G AND WC NO.349
OF 2022 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT,BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND GRANT
OVERNIGHT ACCESS OF THE MINOR CHILD ON ALL THE HOLIDAYS
DURINGS THE SCHOOL TERM ON THE DATES MENTIONED AS
SOUGHT FOR IN I.A NO.12 EVERY YEAR TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE
PETITION IN GWC NO.349 OF 2022, ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL
PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU 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
The present writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking to modify the order dated
26.09.2025 passed on I.A.No.12 in G & WC No.349/2022 by
the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru ('the
Family Court' for short) and grant overnight access of the minor
child on all the holidays during school term on the dates
mentioned in as sought for in IA No.12 every year till the
disposal of the petition in G & WC No.349/2022, on the file of
the Family Court.
2. The petitioner is the biological father of the minor
child Master Samvit Nayak, aged about 11 years. The
respondent is the mother. The dispute pertains to custody and
visitation rights of the minor child.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the petition are
that:-
The parties were married on 28.02.2010 and out of the
wedlock, the minor child was born on 15.09.2014. It is the case
of the petitioner that he has actively participated in the
upbringing of the child since birth and shares a strong
emotional bond with him.
4. Due to matrimonial disputes, the respondent left
the matrimonial home along with the child on 30.07.2022.
Thereafter, several proceedings came to be initiated before the
Family Court. The petitioner was initially granted limited
visitation, which was subsequently modified by this Court in
W.P.No.14708/2024 c/w. W.P.No.4376/2024 by granting
overnight custody on 1st and 3rd Saturdays and visitation 2nd
and 4th Saturday between 9.00am to 7.00pm, apart from 50%
custody during summer vacations, Dasara vacations and winter
vacations.
5. The petitioner thereafter filed I.A.No.12 before the
Family Court seeking overnight custody during mid-term school
holidays. The Family Court, by the impugned order, allowed the
application only in part by granting access for two days during
Deepavali and rejected the prayer for remaining holidays.
6. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed on IA
No.12, the petitioner has filed the present petition before this
Court.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that the Family Court has failed to assign any reasons
for denying access during the remaining school holidays and
that such denial is contrary to the welfare of the child. It is
further contended that the child shares a strong bond with the
petitioner and is desirous of spending time with him.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
seeks to justify the impugned order by contending that the
petitioner has already been granted sufficient visitation and
that further access would disturb the routine of the child.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.
10. This Court has given anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.
11. At the outset, it is to be noted that in matters
relating to custody and visitation of a minor child, the
paramount consideration is the welfare and best interest of the
child and not the rights of the parents. The child is entitled to
the love, care and companionship of both parents, unless there
are compelling circumstances to deny such access.
12. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the
petitioner has been actively involved in the upbringing of the
child and that there exists a bond between the father and the
child. This Court, in earlier proceedings, has already recognized
the said bond by granting overnight custody on alternate
weekends and 50% of Dasara, winter and summer vacations.
13. In the above background, the issue that falls for
consideration in the present petition lies in a narrow compass,
namely, whether the Family Court was justified in restricting
the petitioner's claim for additional overnight custody during
the mid-term school holidays.
14. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, it is
necessary to note that in matters of custody and visitation, the
paramount consideration is the welfare of the child. In order to
bring about consistency and a child-centric approach in such
matters, structured guidelines governing child access, custody
and parenting plans have been evolved.
15. The High Court of Karnataka, by order dated
15.12.2025, has directed that the "Child Access and Custody
Guidelines along with Parenting Plan, 2025", which were
formulated upon extensive stakeholder consultation and
accepted by the High Court of Calcutta, shall be circulated and
applied by all Family Courts in the State until appropriate rules
are framed. The said guidelines, therefore, furnish the
governing framework for regulating custody and visitation.
16. The said framework contemplates a structured
distribution of parenting time, broadly recognizing (i) regular
and periodic access, including weekend visitation, (ii) equitable
sharing of major school vacations, ordinarily to the extent of
50%, and (iii) limited but meaningful access during festival
periods and shorter breaks. The underlying objective is to
secure continued parental bonding while ensuring stability in
the child's routine and academic schedule.
17. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the
petitioner-father has already been granted overnight custody
on 1st and 3rd Saturdays, visitation on 2nd and 4th Saturdays,
and 50% custody during summer, Dasara and winter vacations
pursuant to earlier orders of this Court in W.P.No.14708/2024
c/w. W.P.No.4376/2024. The said arrangement is consistent
with the structured allocation of parenting time contemplated
under the aforesaid guidelines.
18. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to
additional overnight custody during mid-term or short school
holidays. The framework governing custody distinguishes such
short breaks from long vacations and envisages limited
intervention during these periods so as to avoid disruption of
the child's routine. Festival access, in particular, is structured to
ensure that the non-custodial parent has meaningful interaction
without unsettling continuity.
19. In the present case, the Family Court has granted
the petitioner access for two days during Diwali. The said
arrangement ensures that the petitioner is able to spend time
with the child during an important festival period and aligns
with the structured approach governing festival access.
20. The existing custody arrangement already secures
substantial and continuous parenting time in favour of the
petitioner, including regular overnight access and equal sharing
of major vacations. Grant of further overnight custody during
every short academic break is not contemplated within the
structured framework and may lead to fragmentation of the
child's routine.
21. It is also observed that the minor child is aged
about 11 years and is at a stage where continuity in schooling,
daily routine and emotional stability assumes significance. In
the absence of any material to demonstrate that the present
arrangement adversely affects the child's welfare or that
additional custody during short holidays is necessary to
preserve the parental bond, no case for interference is made
out.
22. The contention that the impugned order does not
contain elaborate reasons has been considered. However, the
order, when read in the context of the existing visitation
structure and the relief granted therein, reflects a balancing of
relevant considerations in conformity with the governing
framework. It cannot be said that the Family Court has failed to
exercise jurisdiction or has acted contrary to the welfare of the
child.
23. It is trite that the supervisory jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited.
Interference is warranted only when there is patent perversity,
lack of jurisdiction, or gross injustice. In matters of custody and
visitation, where discretion is exercised in consonance with the
governing framework and welfare considerations, this Court
would not interfere to substitute its own view unless the order
is demonstrably arbitrary.
24. In the present case, the Family Court has neither
acted arbitrarily nor ignored relevant considerations. On the
contrary, the arrangement fashioned by it ensures that the
petitioner continues to have substantial access to the child,
including during major vacations and festival periods.
25. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the Family Court has exercised its
discretion in a manner that subserves the welfare of the minor
child as per the Child Access & Custody Guidelines Parenting
Plan, 2025 by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta.
26. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is
dismissed.
SD/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
bnv
