Parental Relocation Doesn't Nullify Overnight Custody Rights: Karnataka HC

The High Court of Karnataka has ruled that a mother's professional relocation to a different state cannot be used as a primary justification to strip a father of his overnight visitation and custody rights. The Court emphasized that despite a distance of over 800 kilometers between parents, maintaining a meaningful bond through physical custody remains in the child's best interest.

Justice P Sree Sudha, presiding as a single judge bench, adjudicated upon a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The petitioner-mother challenged a Family Court order that had granted visitation and overnight custody to the respondent-father, citing her relocation from Bengaluru to Pune as a logistical barrier that rendered the previous schedule impracticable.

Balancing Career Mobility with Parental Access

The Court observed that while the mother had relocated to Pune for employment, such changes in circumstances should not automatically result in the cessation of the father's custody rights. The bench noted that both parents appeared well-educated and the child was comfortable in the company of both. The Court rejected the respondent's technical objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, choosing instead to focus on a workable solution that accounted for the distance between Bengaluru and Pune.

In its reasoning, the Court observed: "In view of her transfer to Pune, her contention that overnight custody cannot be granted is not acceptable... It appears to the Court that child is comfortable with both the parents. The distance between Bengaluru and Pune is 838 kilometers. Even flight journey takes one and a half hour."

Modified Visitation and Custody Schedule

Recognizing the need for a practical arrangement under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the Court modified the interim arrangement to ensure the father retains physical access to the seven-year-old child once a month. The Court has following directions:

"(i) The respondent/father shall have communication rights of the minor daughter Kum.Samanvi.S. i.e., to have audio/video call on alternate days for 20 minutes between 7.00 p.m. and 8.00 p.m. with prior intimation to the petitioner/mother.

(ii) To grant custody of the minor child to the respondent/father once in a month for two days. He is at liberty to take the child on the 2nd Friday evening after the school hours and he can hand over the child to the mother again on Sunday evening by 08.00 p.m. or 09.00 p.m. at Pune. It is for the respondent/father either to spend time with the child at Pune or he can take the child to his place at Bengaluru as he is residing with his mother."

Background:

The dispute originated from a matrimonial breakdown where the mother filed for divorce and the father sought permanent custody under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. A Bengaluru Family Court had initially granted the father visitation rights every 4th Sunday and overnight custody every 2nd weekend. The mother moved the High Court asserting that her transfer to Pune made this schedule impossible to follow and argued the child’s routine would be disrupted. The father contended that the relocation was a deliberate attempt to deprive him of access. The High Court, while acknowledging the transfer, maintained that the father’s rights could not be terminated and provided a modified schedule requiring the father to travel to Pune or bring the child to Bengaluru for his monthly weekend custody.

Case Details:
Case No.: WP No. 19158 of 2026
NeutralCitation: 2026:KHC:37755
Case Title: Smt. Manpreeth. R v. Sri. Sandeep. R.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Sri. Manushankar S. S., Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Sri. Neladurga S Vijay Kumar, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(KAR) 1489