Supreme Court: In a custody and visitation dispute concerning the minor daughter of the parties, while also taking serious exception to the manner in which the Family Court dealt with the mother’s application seeking restoration of custody, the Division Bench of K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli, JJ., was “astonished” that, despite the High Court having expressly taken note of the mother’s relocation to Pune while modifying the visitation arrangement, the Family Court acted “in the teeth of the express directions of the High Court” and proceeded on findings that disregarded that position. Accordingly, the Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s order and directed the father to comply with the High Court’s directions. The Court stated that the judicial officer was expected “to be more cautious in future”.
Factual Matrix
The petitioner-father had instituted a custody proceeding, before the Family Court at Bengaluru on 22 August 2025, seeking custody of the minor child from the respondent-mother, along with an application seeking visitation rights.
On 17 April 2026, the Family Court granted visitation rights to the father. The arrangement permitted him to communicate with and visit the child every 4th Sunday between 11.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. at a public place. It also granted overnight custody from 4.00 p.m. on every 2nd Friday until 6.00 p.m. on the following Sunday.
Thereafter, the mother relocated to Pune, Maharashtra, in connection with her employment. Since the original arrangement had been made when both parties were residing in Bengaluru, the mother approached the Karnataka High Court seeking modification of the interim visitation order.
On 22 July 2026, the High Court modified the visitation arrangement and directed that the father would have audio/video communication with the minor daughter on alternate days for 20 minutes between 7.00 p.m. and 8.00 p.m., subject to prior intimation to the mother. The High Court further granted the father custody of the child once a month for 2 days, permitting him to take custody from Friday evening after school hours and return the child to the mother at Pune by Sunday evening. The father could either spend the period at Pune or take the child to Bengaluru, where he was residing with his mother.
According to the mother, on 18 July 2026, the Family Court had permitted the father only to interact with the child for a limited period within the Court premises. After the interaction, the father produced the child before the Court and custody was restored to the mother. The mother alleged that, after she left the Court premises with the child, the father, without any authority of law and in complete violation of the Court’s orders, forcibly took the child from her custody and fled. She immediately approached the police and contacted the emergency helpline. Although the father and child were brought to the police station, she alleged that the father again absconded with the child.
Thereafter, the mother lodged a police complaint and initiated habeas corpus proceedings. She subsequently filed an application before the Family Court on 28 July 2026 seeking immediate production of the child and restoration of custody.
The father disputed the mother’s version and stated that, after meeting the child pursuant to the Family Court proceedings, he took the minor to his sister’s residence after discussions with the mother, and that the mother had herself accompanied them in his car. He alleged that the mother subsequently called the police with a “malafide intention”.
The father further asserted that the minor was comfortable with him and wished to remain in his physical custody. He relied upon the presence of his mother and sister in Bengaluru and contended that the child’s interests were better safeguarded in their presence than in Pune, where, the mother did not have another person to assist in caring for the child.
Regarding, the mother’s application filed on 28 July 2026, the Family Court observed that the particulars concerning when the mother lost custody had not been specified in her application and that the application had been filed after a delay of 10 days. It concluded that the respondent had “cleverly taken time” to move the Court for custody and stated that she could not take advantage of her own wrong. On that reasoning, the Court held that application did not survive.
The Family Court also dealt with father’s application, concerning a direction not to take the child outside Bengaluru. Rather than deciding that application on merits at that stage, it directed the parties to honour the modified order of the Karnataka High Court dated 22 July 2026.
Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court by way of the present special leave petition.
Issue for Determination
Whether the Family Court was justified in dismissing the mother’s application for restoration of custody by recording findings which were contrary to the material placed before it and inconsistent with the Karnataka High Court’s express order dated 22 July 2026 modifying the visitation arrangement after taking note of the mother’s relocation to Pune?
Analysis and Decision
At the outset, the Court found “no good ground to interfere with the impugned order” and directed the petitioner to “forthwith comply with the directions of the High Court”.
However, while examining the record, the Court took serious exception to the manner in which the Family Court had dealt with the mother’s application for restoration of custody. In particular, where the Family Court had proceeded on the basis that the mother had not disclosed how she lost custody of the child on 18 July 2026. The Court noted that this finding was contrary to the affidavit filed by the mother, in which she had specifically narrated the circumstances in which the child was allegedly taken from her custody.
Further, the Court noted that the Family Court’s findings regarding the mother’s alleged failure to disclose her relocation to Pune were inconsistent with the record. More importantly, with the Karnataka High Court’s order of 22 July 2026, especially when the High Court had already considered her relocation to Pune and modified the visitation logistics on that basis.
The Court also noted the additional discrepancy pointed out by mother’s counsel that Family Court had recorded that the mother’s Pune address was not disclosed, even though the address was available in the cause title of the application.
Expressing strong disapproval of the Family Court’s approach, the Court stated that “we are astonished that in the teeth of the express directions of the High Court of 22nd July, 2026”, the Family Court had proceeded to record the impugned findings and deny relief to the respondent.
Consequently, the Court directed that a copy of its order be sent to the Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka, with a direction that it be placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka. The Court concluded by observing that it expected the judicial officer to be “more cautious in future”.
[Sandeep R. v. Manpreeth R., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1733, decided on 25-8-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Mr. Abhilesh J., Adv. Mr. Kunal Rana, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Diksha Arora, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashwin V. Kotemath, Adv. Mr. Harisha S.,
