Mr. Ranjan Datta v. Mrs. Sudipta Dutta

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:42626-DB( MFA(No.(950(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010087302026( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

TH DATED(THIS(THE(7 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026( PRESENT( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(D(K(SINGH( AND(( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(T.M.NADAF( MISCELLANEOUS(FIRST(APPEAL(NO.(950(OF(2026((GW)( BETWEEN:(( MR.,RANJAN,DATTA, S/O,LATE,SANTOSH,DATTA,,

AGED,ABOUT,48,YEARS, RESIDING,AT:,B,602,,HRC,IBBANI,, KV,JAYRAM,ROAD,,JAKKUR,P.O,,,

BANGALORE,-,560,064, PH:,9513471098, PREVIOUS,ADDRESS:,JJD-L,,JNCASR,

JAKKUR,P.O.,BENGALURU,-,560,064, …APPELLANT, (BY,SRI.,ANIL,KUMAR,,ADVOCATE),

AND:( Digitally signedtiby MRS.,SUDIPTA,DUTTA, REKHA0R W/O,RANJAN,DATTA,O,, Location: D/O,SUDHIR,DUTTA,, High0Court AGED,ABOUT,44,YEARS,,of Karnataka RESIDING,AT:,B,201,,, CENTURY,MARVEL,APARTMENT,, HEBBAL,,KEMPAPURA,, BANGALORE,-,560,024, PREVIOUS,ADDRESS:,, KAPILA-3,,II,SC,,, BENGALURU,-,560,012,, YESHWANTHPUR., …RESPONDENT, (BY,SMT.,BEAULA,JEMIMA,THILAKAVATHI,,ADVOCATE),

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 47 (C) OF GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:05.01.2026 PASSED IN G AND WC.NO. 306/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL PRL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S.25 OF THE GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT, 1890.

THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) This appeal is by the petitioner/father, assailing the Judgment and award dated 05.01.2026 passed by the II Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru1 in G & WC No.306/2017.

¶2The Family Court under the impugned order, partly allowed the petition filed by the petitioner-father

1 'the Family Court', for short

under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 18902, granting visitation rights of the minor child Master Driptarshi Datta on every 2nd and 4th Sundays from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Further ordered that the father shall have rights to make audio/video calls to the minor child on every Tuesday and Friday for 10 to 20 minutes in between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. The petitioner shall have interim custody of the minor child during 50% of the school vacations whenever it is more than 4 days. The Family Court further ordered that the parties are at liberty to fix 50% of school vacations convenient to themselves and the minor child, and the petitioner shall pick up and drop the minor child at the residence of the respondent - mother.

¶3The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court.

¶4Heard, Sri.Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-father and Smt.Beaula

2 G & WC Act, for short

Jemima Thilakavathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-mother.

¶5Having, heard the rival submissions, we are in confirmity with the order passed by the Family Court declining to grant custody of the child. However, in view of our interaction with the appellant and the child, we are of the opinion that the following modification is required for the purpose of bonding the relationship of child and the father. In that regard, we little enhance the visitation rights as under:

i) The petitioner - father shall have visitation rights of the minor child Master Driptarshi Datta on every Sunday from 10:00 a.m., to 4:00 p.m., without any overnight custody.

ii) The petitioner - father shall communicate with the child every day through phone call in between 7:00 p.m., to 8:00 p.m., for a period of six months.

iii) After a period of six months, in the event the bonding between the father and the child

improves, the petitioner - father may file an application seeking overnight custody.

iv) So far as custody during the holidays, the order of the Family Court is kept intact.

v) Neither the respondent - mother shall not come in the way of the petitioner's visitation rights granted hereinabove, nor the father shall not any take any disadvantage of the rights given herein above. Any contravention by either parties would be viewed seriously entirely on the other party complaining to move an applications seeking for modification of the order herein above.

¶6With the above observations and modifications, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12