Mrs Garima Mishra v. Mr Aparmaya Shukla

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO. 3104 OF 2023 (GM-FC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 21797 OF 2023 (GM-FC) IN WP NO. 3104/2023 BETWEEN:

¶1MRS. GARIMA MISHRA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS W/O APARMAYA SHUKLA RESIDING AT FLAT E5-903, SNN RAJ GREENBAY APARTMENTS, ELECTRONIC CITY , PHASE-2, BENGALURU-560100. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MURTUZA ALI BAIG., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. OMRAN KHAN., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1MR. APARMAYA SHUKLA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O SUSHIL KUMAR SHUKLA RESIDING AT 5-B, KASTURBANAGAR, NEAR TUBEWELL SIGRA, CHITTUPUR, MAHMOOR GANJ, VARANASI, UTTAR PRADESH-221010 ALSO AT, FLAT E5-903, SNN RAJ GREENBAY APARTMENTS , ELECTRONIC CITY, PHASE-2, BENGALURU-560100 by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA e -e2e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:10509 WP(No.(3104(of(2023 C/W(WP(No.(21797(of(2023 PRESENTLY,AT, FLAT,NO.534,,RAINDROPS,APARTMENT,, HARALUR,ROAD,, AMABALIPURA,,BENGALURU-560102., …RESPONDENT, (BY,SRI.,P.,B.,RAJU.,,ADVOCATE,FOR,, ,,,,,,SRI.,A,RAVISHANKAR.,ADVOCATE), , THIS, WRIT, PETITION, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND,227,OF,THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO,ISSUE, A,WRIT,OF,CERTIORARI,OR,ANY,OTHER,APPROPRIATE,WRIT,, ORDER,OR,DIRECTION,QUASHING,THE,ORDER,PASSED,BY,THE, LD.VI, ADDL., DISTRICT, &, SESSIONS, JUDGE,, BENGALURU, RURAL,AT,BENGALURU,,DATED,21.01.2023,IN,IA,NO.1,FILED, IN,G,&,WC,NO.35/2021,PRODUCED,HEREIN,AS,ANNEXURE-A, TO,THIS,WRIT,PETITION., IN(WP(NO.(21797/2023 BETWEEN:

1., MR.,APARMAYA,SHUKLA, AGED,ABOUT,42,YEARS,, S/O.,SUSHIL,KUMAR,SHUKLA,, R/AT,5-B,,KASTURABANAGAR,, NEAR,TUBEWELL,SIGRA,, CHITTUPUR,,MAHOOR,GANJ,, VARANASI,,UTTAR,PRADESH-221,010., ALSO,AT,FLAT,E-5,,903,,, SNN,RAJ,GREENBAY,APARTMENTS,, ELECTRONIC,CITY,PHASE-2,, KARNATAKA,,BENGALURU-560,100., PRESENTLY,AT, FLAT,NO.,534,,RAIN,DROP,APARTMENTS,, e -e3e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:10509 WP(No.(3104(of(2023 C/W(WP(No.(21797(of(2023 HARALUR,ROAD,, AMBALIPURA,, BENGALURU-560,102., ...PETITIONER (BY,SRI.,P.,B.,RAJU.,,ADVOCATE,FOR, SRI.,A,RAVISHANKAR.,,ADVOCATE), AND:

1., MRS.,GARIMA,MISHRA, AGED,ABOUT,41,YEARS,, W/O.,APARMYA,SHUKLA,, CURRENTLY,RESIDING,AT,FLAT,E-5,,903,, SNN,RAJ,GREENBAY,APARTMENTS,, ELECTRONIC,CITY,PHASE-2,, KARNATAKA,,BENGALURU-560,100., ...RESPONDENT (BY,SRI.,MURTUZA,ALI,BAIG.,,ADVOCATE,FOR, ,,,,,,SRI.,OMRAN,KHAN.,,ADVOCATE), ,,,,,,,THIS, WRIT, PETITION, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLE, 227, OF,THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO,SET,ASIDE, THE,ORDER,DTD,17.8.2023,PASSED,ON,IA,DTD,5.4.2023, (IA, NO.2), BY, THE, VI, ADDITIONAL, DISTRICT, AND, SESSIONS, JUDGE,, BENGALURU, RURAL, DISTRICT,, BENGALURU,IN,G,AND,WC,NO.35/2021,VIDE,ANNEXURE-A, BY, ALLOWING, INTERLOCUTORY, APPLICATION, DTD,

5.4.2023, (IA, NO.2), FILED, BY, THE, PETITIONER, AND, HANDOVER, THE, PHYSICAL, POSSESSION, OF, THE, CHILD, SAANVIKA,SHUKLA,ALIAS,MEETHI,TO,THE,PETITIONER.,, , THESE, PETITIONS,, COMING, ON, FOR, PRELIMINARY, HEARING, IN, 'B', GROUP, THIS, DAY,, ORDER, WAS, MADE, THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,DR.,JUSTICE,CHILLAKUR,SUMALATHA,

ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.P.B.Raju who represents Sri.A. Ravishankar learned counsel for the petitioner in writ petition No.21797/2023 who also represents the respondent in the connected matter. Also heard Sri. Murtuza Ali Baig, who represents Sri.Omran Khan learned counsel on record for the petitioner in writ petition No.3104/2023 who also represents the respondent in the connected matter.

¶2As the parties in both the writ petitions are common and as their relationship is not in dispute, they will hereafter be referred to as husband and wife.

¶3While writ petition No.3104/2023 is filed by wife seeking the Court to issue a writ of certiorari and to quash the order that is rendered by the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural on I.A No.I in G&WC No.35/2021 dated

21.01.2023, writ petition No.21797/2023 is filed by husband seeking the Court to

set aside the order that is rendered by the same court in the same case however on the order dated 17.08.2023.

¶4Father filed a petition that is I.A No.I seeking visitation rights of his child Ms.Saanvika Shukla. District Court allowed the said interlocutory application in part and granted interim custody of the child to father on every Saturday from 12.00 noon to 02.00 p.m and for four hours on festival days i.e., Dasara, Diwali, Christmas, Ugadi, Holi, Gowri/Ganesh Chaturthi and for four hours on 28th September being the birthday of the child. Aggrieved by the order thus passed, wife filed writ petition No.3104/2023.

¶5Projecting that wife is guilty of continuous breach of the order passed on I.A No.I, husband filed an application seeking custody of the child. The said interlocutory application was dismissed by order dated

17.08.2023 and aggrieved by the same, husband filed writ petition No.21797/2023.

¶6Learned counsel who represents wife submits that as on the date of order in I.A No.I, the child was aged around 3 years and as the child of that age could not be handed over to husband, the orders on I.A No.I were challenged. However as of now, wife is complying the order and thus, necessary orders may be passed in the said writ petition.

¶7Learned counsel who represents husband submits that wife never obliged the orders passed on I.A No.I and hence husband initiated contempt proceedings against wife and in the order rendered in the contempt petition also there is a clear observation that wife committed breach of the orders on I.A. No.I. Learned counsel states that the child needs proper treatment and husband is ready and willing to take the child to any of the best specialists available and incur all medical expenditure and thus custody has to be given to the father.

¶8There is no denial of the fact that the child suffers from physiological disorder. Material available on record reveals that the husband and wife are on loggerheads since the birth of the child. wife is required to abide by the order rendered on I.A No.I until the said order is set aside or modified. However only basing on the allegation that wife has committed breach of the order rendered on I.A No.I, husband cannot seek permanent custody of the child.

¶9District Court taking into consideration the entire factual scenario and the welfare of the child passed reasoned orders. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds to entertain these writ petitions. Resultantly, the following:- ORDER i. Both the writ petitions are dismissed. ii. In the light of the submission that is made by Sri.P.B.Raju who represents the husband that

the child needs immediate medical care and attention, in case any application seeking any directions for such medical care are filed, the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is directed to dispose of those interlocutory applications without delay. SD/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2