IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO. 10038 OF 2019 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
SRI VENKATESH H. T.
S/O LATE THIMME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, HOTTIGANA HOSAHALLI GRAMA, CHAKKARE POST, MALUR HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
(BY SRI. T. RAJARAM, ADV.) AND:
SMT. SHWETHA, W/O VENKATESH HT W/O LOKESH, FATHER AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, JOG ROAD, BESIDE THIRUMALA BAR, SAGAR TOWN-577 401, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. C.D. NATARAJ, ADV. FOR SRI. PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADV.,) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SAGARA IN MC NO.43/2018 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED ON 21.12.2018 WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MAKRED AS ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.T.Rajaram, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.C.D.Nataraj, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 21.12.2018 passed by the family court, by which the family court on a memo being filed by the respondent has restrained the petitioner who is the father from touching the baby, taking his photograph and not to give any eatables including Prasad to the baby.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner being the father be allowed to touch the baby and to take photographs of the baby. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order passed by the family court.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel on both the sides. Petitioner is admittedly father of the child viz., the son who is aged about 1.3 months. The petitioner has the right to touch the child and to take his photographer being the father. The order passed by the family court insofar as it pertains to the aforesaid aspect of the matter is per se arbitrary and suffers from the vice of non application of mind. The baby should not be deprived of the love and affection of his father. Besides that the family court has not assigned any reasons for passing such order. The impugned order dated 21.12.2018 to the aforesaid extent is quashed. Petitioner is permitted to touch his son and take photograph.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS