Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri Sayan Mukherjee, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, in G&WC No.21/2023. The said G&WC was filed by the father for custody of the minor child. In that proceeding, the father filed I.A.No.2 seeking an injunction restraining the mother from taking the child out of Bangalore, and I.A.No.3 seeking visitation rights. The mother initially filed a memo stating she had no objection and would not take the child out of the court's jurisdiction until I.A.No.2 was decided. However, the trial court dismissed I.A.No.2, observing that there was no provision under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 to pass such an injunction order. Regarding I.A.No.3, the court granted the father visitation rights on every Sunday from 8.00 am to 10.00 pm and on public holidays. Aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.2, the father approached the High Court. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the trial court's observation that there is no provision under the Act to pass an injunction order is erroneous. Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 empowers the court to make interim orders for the protection of the ward, including restraining the removal of the child from the court's jurisdiction. The High Court set aside the order dismissing I.A.No.2 and directed the trial court to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after hearing both parties. The order regarding visitation rights (I.A.No.3) was not interfered with as it was not challenged. The High Court disposed of the writ petition with the above directions.
Headnote
A) Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Section 12 - Injunction - Power to restrain removal of child from jurisdiction - The trial court erred in holding that there is no provision under the Act to pass an injunction order. Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 empowers the court to make interim orders for the protection of the ward, including restraining the removal of the child from the court's jurisdiction. The High Court set aside the order dismissing I.A.No.2 and directed the trial court to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. (Paras 2-4) B) Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Section 12 - Visitation Rights - Interim custody - The trial court granted visitation rights to the father on every Sunday from 8.00 am to 10.00 pm and on public holidays. The High Court did not interfere with this order as it was not challenged. (Paras 2-4) C) Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Section 7, Section 17 - Welfare of child - Paramount consideration - In matters of custody and visitation, the welfare of the child is of paramount importance. The court must balance the rights of both parents while ensuring the child's best interests. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the father's application for injunction restraining the mother from taking the minor child out of Bangalore, and whether the visitation rights granted were adequate.
Final Decision
The High Court set aside the order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, in I.A.No.2 in G&WC No.21/2023, and directed the trial court to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after hearing both parties. The order regarding I.A.No.3 (visitation rights) was not interfered with. The writ petition was disposed of.
Law Points
- Guardians and Wards Act
- 1890
- Section 12
- Section 25
- Section 7
- Section 17
- Welfare of child
- Injunction
- Interim custody
- Visitation rights
- Jurisdiction
- Child removal
