Child Cannot Be Taken Away In Defiance Of Court Orders: Karnataka HC

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru has allowed a writ petition filed by a mother, setting aside a Family Court order that had dismissed her application for restoration of custody, and directing the father to hand over the minor child after finding that he had abruptly taken away the child in violation of orders passed by both the Family Court and the High Court.

Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha was hearing a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash an order dated 29.07.2026 passed by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the petitioner/mother's application seeking production and restoration of custody of the minor child had been dismissed.

As per the undisputed facts, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised in 2015, and a female child was born to them in 2019. Following marital discord, the parties began residing separately, and the mother instituted proceedings seeking dissolution of marriage. The father, in turn, filed a guardianship petition seeking permanent custody of the child, along with an interlocutory application seeking interim custody and visitation rights.

The interim application was disposed of on 17.04.2026, granting the father limited communication and visitation rights, including alternate-day audio/video calls, monthly overnight custody, and supervised daytime visitation. Aggrieved by the extent of visitation granted, the mother approached the High Court, which, by order dated 22.07.2026, modified the arrangement to grant the father custody of the child once a month for two days, requiring him to collect the child from Bengaluru and return her to the mother at Pune.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that on 18.07.2026, while the mother had brought the child to the Family Court, Bengaluru to attend proceedings, the father took the child away in his car after the hearing was adjourned. When the mother followed and got into the same vehicle, the child was taken to the residence of the father's sister and kept outside the house, following which the mother dialled emergency helpline number 112. Although police brought the matter to a police station and summoned the father, he took the child away again from the police station without informing police personnel and thereafter remained unreachable, with the child continuing to remain in his custody since.

Counsel for the father did not dispute that the manner of taking custody "may be improper in the eye of law," but argued that the father was nevertheless justified, contending that the mother had relocated to Pune without disclosing her residential address, that the child would be left alone while the mother was at work, and that the child's best interests lay in remaining at Bengaluru where the father's family support system was available.

Rejecting this justification, the Court observed that if the father had genuine concerns regarding the child's safety or relocation, it was open to him to move an appropriate application before the Family Court; instead, he had proceeded to take custody abruptly and without any order of the Court, in violation of both the Family Court's directions and the High Court's own order dated 22.07.2026, which had expressly required him to return the child to the mother's custody at Pune.

The Court was emphatic that the dispute between the parties had come at the cost of the child's own rights, observing that “the child was taken away as if she is a commodity or lifeless object.” It held that a child's right to be treated with dignity, to live in a secure atmosphere, and to be heard in matters concerning the family is an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution, and that Family Courts exist precisely to preserve such rights. The Bench further observed that Courts must remain vigilant in guardianship and custody matters, and that emotions on the part of contesting parents should not be permitted to override the legal rights of the child.

Finding that the Family Court had dismissed the mother's application without considering these aspects, despite having itself directed the parties to honour the High Court's modified order under which custody was to remain with the mother, the Court held that the impugned order could not be sustained and was liable to be set aside.

Allowing the writ petition, the Court set aside the Family Court's order dated 29.07.2026, directed the respondent/father to hand over custody of the minor child to the petitioner/mother, and required him to produce the child before the Family Court on 25.08.2026 for the custody to be formally restored. For taking the law into his own hands and violating the orders of both the Family Court and the High Court, the father was directed to pay costs of Rs. 5,00,000/-, of which Rs. 1,00,000/- was directed to be paid to the Army Welfare Fund and the remaining Rs. 4,00,000/- deposited as a fixed deposit in the child's name, withdrawable by her upon attaining majority. The father was further restrained from conducting the guardianship proceedings until proof of payment of the costs was produced.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Sri. B. Ramesh, Advocate for Sri. Manu Shankar S. S., Advocate.

For the Respondent: Sri. Abhilesh, Advocate for Sri. N.S. Vijaykumar, Advocate.

Case Title: Writ Petition No. 24828 of 2026 (GM-FC), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru