Complete Exclusion Of Mother From Child's Life Needs Compelling Circumstances: Karnataka High Court Quashes Blanket Denial Of Visitation

In a matter relating to the custody of a minor girl, the Karnataka High Court quashed a Family Court's ex parte interim injunction order which completely barred the mother from having access to the daughter till the completion of the child's year-end exams in June.

A single-judge bench of Justice Dr. K. Manmadha Rao allowed the writ petitions filed by the mother and vacated the interim stay granted in favour of the child's paternal grandmother and paternal aunt on April 24.

The court said that the mother -a natural guardian of the teenage daughter under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - cannot be fully restricted from meeting her child, in the absence of 'compelling justifications', even if the interim order is for a limited time period.

“…Though the impugned order[Family Court's] does not expressly displace such status [mother as a natural guardian], its effect is to substantially curtail the petitioner's ability to exercise the incidents of natural guardianship. By continuing an order of injunction …the Family Court has, in substance, diluted the statutory recognition accorded under Section 6….at the interlocutory stage. In a situation where the dispute is not between two natural guardians, any order resulting in complete exclusion of the mother must be supported by compelling circumstances demonstrable from the record”, the court said.

On 'compelling circumstances' in reference to the current case, the court observed that the respondent relatives of the deceased husband could not demonstrate any 'prima facie' unfitness or imminent threat to the welfare of the minor from the petitioner-mother, which could have justified a total denial of access.

“…The contention of the respondents that continuity and stability in the child's routine, particularly in view of academic examinations, necessitated such restraint cannot be accepted to the extent of supporting a blanket denial of access. At the highest, such considerations may warrant regulation of interaction, but not complete exclusion…”, the court further clarified.

However, while vacating the order restraining the petitioner-mother, the court has also clarified that the final adjudication about custody, guardianship and visitation rights would be carried out by the Family Court and the current findings are related only to the legality of the interim injunction passed against the mother.

Background

The petitioner's husband passed away in June 2025 due to obstructive pulmonary disease. He had allegedly left behind a substantial estate, and disagreements ensued between the wife and the family of the deceased. The petitioner-mother initiated proceedings to obtain a succession certificate, followed by a partition suit for shares in the estate of the deceased.

According to the petitioner-mother, her late husband's brother-in-law evicted her from their company-allocated residence in May 2025. This was followed by a plea from them before the family court to appoint the paternal grandmother and the paternal aunt (wife of the co-founder) as the guardians of the minor child. The respondents in the current petition also managed to get an ex parte injunction order restraining the natural mother from interfering with the custody of the child.

Subsequently, the mother's application to vacate the interim injunction was also rejected by the family court at Devanahalli, leaving the mother unable to visit the child for over 6 months until the completion of June 2026 school exams. Hence, the mother approached the High Court to set aside the injunction order restraining her from visiting her child.

Findings

The court relied on Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh (AIR 2017 SC 929) wherein it was held that at the end of a final custody determination that the exclusion of a mother who is the child's natural guardian would detrimentally affect their welfare and pave the way for parental alienation. The High Court opined that the same principle applies squarely to interim arrangements.

“..An interlocutory order resulting in complete denial of maternal access must therefore be viewed with circumspection, as it carries the potential of causing irreversible emotional consequences…An arrangement which, at the interlocutory stage, places the child exclusively within the domain of one set of relatives to the complete exclusion of the natural parent is prima facie inconsistent with such holistic assessment”, the court explained that the proximity of a natural parent gains prominence, though the caregiving role of the grandmother [R1] also carries some weight for the minor child.

On the Family Court's interaction with the child, the single judge bench noted as below:

“…Though the Family Court has interacted with the minor child, such interaction, at the interlocutory stage, is only one of the relevant factors and cannot be treated as determinative, particularly when the child has been in the exclusive custody of respondents herein for a considerable period. The possibility of influence, coupled with the emotional circumstances arising from the loss of a parent, necessitates a cautious approach in placing reliance on such interaction at this stage….”

Accordingly, the court allowed both writ petitions and set aside the Family Court's common order from January 2026, which allowed the injunction application against the mother and dismissed the mother's vacation application to lift the injunction against visitation.

Senior Adv Anant Magdi and Amit Magid appeared for the petitioner. Advocate Santosh S Gogi appeared for R1 and R2.

Case Title: X v. Y & Anr.

Case No: Writ Petition No. 5971/2026 c/w Writ Petition No. 4443/2026

Click Here To Read/ Download Order