'Child Not A Commodity': Karnataka High Court Fines Father ₹5 Lakh For Taking Daughter From Court Premises In Violation Of Custody Orders
Imposing a fine of Rs 5 lakhs on a father who allegedly 'abducted' his minor daughter from the Family Court premises, the Karnataka High Court has recently directed the immediate return of child's custody to the mother.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 313]
The single judge bench of Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha allowed a plea preferred by the mother, while setting aside the Bengaluru Family Court's order dated July 29, 2026, which had dismissed her application seeking production and restoration of custody of her minor daughter aged around 7 years.
“…Abruptly taking the custody of the child without at least enquiring the child whether she is willing to accompany and giving time to the child at least to think about, to respond and to make up her mind, is in clear violation of basic human rights…Adults as well as children have equal human rights. In the case on hand, the child was taken away as if she is a commodity or lifeless object…”, the court noted in the order.
While allowing the plea, the Court has instructed the respondent-father to produce the child before the Family Court on August 25, 2026 at 10:30 AM, for handing over the daughter's custody to the mother. The court has also clarified that the father would not be permitted to conduct the case in the Family Court until proof of payment of 5 lakhs cost is produced.
“…Child's right to be treated with dignity, to live in secured atmosphere, to be protected from all kinds of abuse, audience before Courts of law, to participate in issues relating to family, to get education of his/her choice etc., is integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees Right to Life…In case respondent/father feels that child will not be safe in the hands of petitioner/mother or the child will feel difficulty in living at Pune, nothing could have prevented respondent/father to move an application bringing to the notice of the Family Court about the same and seeking an order restraining the petitioner/mother to relocate the child from Bengaluru to Pune…”, the court underscored.
For context, the petitioner-mother had alleged, while she was present at the Family Court along with the daughter in July 2026, the respondent-father abruptly took the child away in his car. The child was taken to the residence of the father's sister, where the mother was allegedly denied entry.
According to the mother, police were duly informed, and the personnel came to the spot shortly thereafter. However, according to the petitioner-mother, the father, along with their child, came to the police station, and took her away again without informing the police personnel.
The Court, after hearing both sides, highlighted that the father had not only violated the Family Court's interim order, but also the modified order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 19158/2026 dated July 22, 2026.
The earlier High Court order in July had specifically permitted the father to take custody of the child for exercising his visitation rights from Pune, and had directed him to hand the child back to the mother's custody at Pune after the end of the said term.
For further context, the petitioner-mother had filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce before the Family Court. Similarly, the respondent-father had filed a plea before the family court seeking custody of the child.
“…That being the case, it is wholly unjustifiable on part of respondent/father in taking the custody of the child abruptly and without any order of the Court whatsoever. The action on part of respondent/father in doing so is in clear violation of the order of the Family Court as well as this Court… For taking the law into his hands, violating the orders of the Family Court as well as this Court and also violating the basic human rights of the child, respondent/father is directed to pay costs”, the court said further.
Out of the cost imposed, Rs. 1,00,000 shall be paid to the Army Welfare Fund, the court has directed. Moreover, the remaining Rs. 4,00,000 should be deposited in a Fixed Deposit in any nationalized bank in the name of the minor daughter, the court instructed further.
Case No: WP No. 24828/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 313