The Karnataka High Court has awarded permanent custody of a seven-year-old child with special needs to her mother, reversing a lower court decision that had given custody to the father. A bench of Justice D. K. Singh and Justice T. M. Nadaf ruled that the young girl requires continuous maternal care and specialized medical treatment, while also raising the monthly maintenance allowance payable by the father to Rs 25,000.
Court Cites Child Welfare and Maternal Care
The decision came after the mother appealed a February 2024 family court ruling that had granted permanent custody to the father. Reversing that outcome, the High Court emphasized that a child of tender age with special medical conditions needs the steady presence, affection, and care of her mother.
The judges observed that the father currently resides alone in Bengaluru, whereas his permanent home is in Maharashtra, concluding that placing the girl in his sole care would not serve her best interests. The court also clarified that an isolated incident where the mother left the child at a daycare center contrary to medical advice did not justify separating the daughter from her mother.
Maintenance Increased and Visitation Granted
Under the August 12 order, the High Court instructed the father to pay Rs 25,000 per month towards the child’s maintenance, increasing the amount from the earlier fixed sum of Rs 15,000 to cover continuous medical expenses and specialized attention.
The ruling also established structured access rights for the father. He has been permitted to visit his daughter every Sunday between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. in the mother’s presence, make daily video calls lasting 10 to 15 minutes each evening, and attend the child’s medical appointments alongside the mother whenever convenient.
Background and Hopes for Reconciliation
Represented by Senior Advocate S. Susheela, the mother challenged only the custody element of the lower court’s decision, choosing not to contest the dismissal of her divorce petition.
The father, who represented himself during the proceedings, informed the court that he wished to preserve the marriage and was waiting for his wife to return. Expressing a desire to maintain a healthy family life for their child’s upbringing, he opposed the dissolution of the union.
Reflecting on the family’s situation, the High Court expressed hope that the parents’ shared devotion to their daughter’s welfare might help them overcome past disagreements and eventually lead to a reconciliation.
