IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.33754 & 34248 OF 2016 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
NIVAS SAINATH, SON OF LATE.MR.R.SAINATH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT 2135, 16TH B MAIN, HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 008.
(BY MR.P.B.APPAIAH, ADV.) AND:
LEENA ELIZABETH NIVAS, WIFE OF NIVAS SAINATH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, NO.77, 1ST CROSS, INDIRANAGAR, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 038.
(BY MR.AZHAR MEER, ADV.) …PETITIONER … RESPONDENT - - -
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DTD:4.1.2016 AT ANNEXURE-A AND 10.2.2016 AT ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY THE IIND ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU IN M.C.NO.5162/2014 AND GRANT OVERNIGHT VISITATION RIGHTS TO THE PETITIONER AT HIS RESIDENSE STARTING FROM 8AM ON SATURDAY MORNING TO 8PM ON SUNDAY EVENING, AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.P.B.Appaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Azhar Meer, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petitions are admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
3. In these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the orders dated 04.01.2016 and 10.02.2016 passed by the Family Court by which application filed by the petitioner under Section 38 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, to grant custody of the minor child has been partly allowed and the petitioner has been granted visitation rights to visit the minor child on every Sunday from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the respondent fairly submitted that the respondent has no objection if the child spends some more time on Sunday with the petitioner who is her father. The aforesaid suggestion is accepted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, I deem it appropriate to direct that the petitioner shall pick up the child namely Maya from the residence of the respondent at 10 a.m. and shall drop her back at 6 p.m. on every Sunday. To the aforesaid extent, the orders dated 04.01.2016 and 10.02.2016 are modified.
6. Taking into account the fact that the proceeding initiated by the petitioner before the Family Court is pending since 2014, it is directed that the Family Court shall make an endeavour to conclude the proceeding expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. Needless to state that the parties to the proceeding shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment and shall cooperate with the Family Court for early completion of the proceeding.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.
7. In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, the pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV