The Supreme Court of India, in a bench comprising Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Arun Palli, declined to interfere with a High Court order regarding child custody and visitation rights, while expressing strong disapproval of a trial court judge for recording findings contrary to judicial records and High Court directives. Dismissing the special leave petition, the Supreme Court directed the petitioner-father to strictly adhere to the High Court’s modified visitation arrangement and ordered a copy of its observation to be placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka.
Background of the Case
The legal proceedings initiated when the petitioner-father filed a custody petition (G & W.C No. 319 of 2025) before the Family Court at Bengaluru on August 22, 2025, seeking custody of his minor daughter alongside interim visitation rights under Interim Application (IA) No. 2. On April 17, 2026, the Family Court granted the father visitation rights on every fourth Sunday from 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at a public place, and overnight custody from 4:00 p.m. on every second Friday until 6:00 p.m. on every second Sunday.
Thereafter, on June 20, 2026, the respondent-mother approached the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 19158 of 2026 seeking modification of the interim visitation order. On July 22, 2026, the High Court modified the order after explicitly taking note of the fact that the mother had relocated to Pune, Maharashtra in connection with her employment. The High Court granted alternate-day video/audio calls for 20 minutes and monthly two-day custody to the father at Pune or Bengaluru.
Arguments and Conflicting Versions of the Parties
The dispute escalated following a court-permitted interaction on July 18, 2026. The respondent-mother subsequently moved IA No. 7 of 2026 on July 28, 2026, seeking a direction to the father to immediately produce the minor child and restore custody.
In her affidavit, the mother stated that following the court interaction on July 18, 2026, the custody of the child was restored to her. She alleged that the father “forcibly took away the minor child from my custody and fled from the Court premises.” She further detailed that although the police emergency helpline (112) was contacted and the father and child were brought to Sampigehalli Police Station, the father “once again absconded with the minor child.”
Contrarily, the father submitted in his statement that post-interaction, after a discussion with the mother, he took the minor daughter to his sister’s residence, and that the mother had joined him in his car. He claimed that upon reaching the residence, the mother dialed 112 with “malafide intention.” He further submitted that the minor child was comfortable in his physical custody surrounded by paternal family members, including her grandmother and aunt in Bengaluru, which better safeguarded her interests compared to remaining by herself at Pune.
Family Court Order
On July 29, 2026, the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, disposed of IA No. 7 of 2026. The trial judge observed that the mother failed to specify particulars of how she lost custody, accused her of taking time to approach the court, and noted that she failed to inform the court of her relocation to Pune. The trial court further noted that the mother’s Pune address was not available on record, thereby dismissing her application.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Verdict
Upon hearing counsel for both parties, the Supreme Court found no ground to interfere with the impugned High Court order and held: “The petitioner shall forthwith comply with the directions of the High Court.”
Examining the record of the trial court proceedings, the apex court expressed astonishment over the Family Court’s observations. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had already explicitly recognized the mother’s relocation to Pune in its order dated July 22, 2026, while revising visitation logistics. Furthermore, the mother’s Pune address was clearly stated in the cause title of her application.
Addressing the trial court’s order, the Supreme Court observed:
“We are astonished that in the teeth of the express directions of the High Court of 22nd July, 2026 in Writ Petition No.19158 of 2026 filed by the petitioner for modification of the interim order on visitation rights, the Trial Court has gone ahead and recorded these findings and denied relief to the respondent.”
The Supreme Court directed that a copy of its order be forwarded to the Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka to be placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court, adding: “We rest the matter at that and expect the Judicial Officer to be more cautious in future.”
Case Details
Case Title: Sandeep R. v. Manpreeth R
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 50965/2026
Bench: Justice K.V. Viswanathan, Justice Arun Palli
Date: August 25, 2026
