Kishore Baishya vs Rebecca Hooper

Lalitha Kanneganti, J

The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in G&WC.No.61/2024 dated 01.07.2024 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, whereby the trial Court had insisted for the physical presence of the child before the trial Court. The trial Court has observed that on 08.05.2024, 12.06.2024 and 09.06.2024, directed the physical presence of the child which was not complied with. The Court considering the best interest of the child held that it is appropriate to give one more opportunity to the father before proceeding to take any stringent action against the father. Aggrieved thereby, the father is before this Court.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the father submits that without any proper reasons as to why the boy should be produced before the Court, the Court had passed the order. It was stated that the boy can speak to the Court through a video conference. The boy is staying in Guwahati now and as he has been staying away from the mother, if the mother starts interacting with him over phone and once the boy gets used to mother, thereafter, he can be brought to Bangalore. But without any reason the trial Court had asked the father to bring the child to the Court. The boy may not be comfortable coming to the Court. Before the Child Welfare Committee also, it is stated that the boy is not comfortable going to Bangalore. It is submitted that the order that is passed by the trial Court to produce the child is without any reasons and the same is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the Bangalore Courts have no jurisdiction and the boy is refusing to come to Bangalore.

Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, this Court has perused the entire material on record. In view of the disputes between the parties, the husband has filed G&WC at Guwahati and the wife had filed G&WC at Bangalore. In the petition filed by the wife, the proceedings at Guwahati are stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

It is the case of the wife as per the petition filed in G&WC that out of the wedlock, they are blessed with a son who is born on 31.08.2012. After the marriage, they stayed at Guwahati and then she had moved to Bangalore along with the minor son in June 2022 and the custody of the child was with the mother, with the consent and knowledge of the father. The son was admitted to Candor International School, Bangalore in Grade 4 for the academic year 2022-2023. The father had come to Bangalore on 10.03.2024 and on his request that he want to take the child to Guwahati to see his ailing mother. The mother had permitted the boy to travel and as per the travel plan, he had to leave on 22.03.2024 and had to return back on 28.03.2024. But the boy did not return to Bangalore and he was joined in the school at Guwahati.

Considering the application filed by the wife, the trial Court had insisted that the boy shall be present before the Court. In the cases of this nature, when the children are staying with one of the parent, unless and until the Court interacts with the child, the Court cannot understand what has transpired between the parties and what is the state of mind of the boy. The Court cannot take into consideration the perspective of the father and the mother who are at the logger heads. In these kind of cases it is very much necessary for the Court to interact with the boy and also to know what is that he wants. Considering the age of the boy, who is 12 years as on today, it is very much necessary for the trial Court to interact with the boy and the Court had rightly taken a stand and passed the order. When the Court had specifically directed the father to produce the boy on many occasions i.e., on 08.05.2024, 12.06.2024 and on 19.06.2024, in spite of an order passed by the Court, the father had not complied with the same and now he has come before the Court questioning the said order. The father is obligated to comply with the orders of the Court. With regard to the submission of the learned Senior counsel about jurisdiction and the boy refusing to come to Bangalore, this is a normal phenomenon in every case where the child is with one of the parents. It is submitted that the boy is reluctant to see the mother. In this case when the boy was staying with the mother in Bangalore till 2023 March, this submission gains more significance which the trial Court will decide in the due course.

Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

ii. Pending I.As., if any, in the writ petition shall stand closed.