Weekly 1,000-km Travel Burden on 10-Year-Old Unjust, Says Karnataka HC; Modifies Child Visitation Order

The Karnataka High Court modified a family court's visitation schedule that required a 10-year-old to travel 475 kilometres each way between Bengaluru and Honnavar every second weekend, holding that the child's welfare cannot yield to the disputes of estranged parents.

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, on 25 August 2026, modified a visitation order passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Honnavar, which had directed a father residing in Bengaluru to hand over custody of the couple's 10-year-old son to the mother in Honnavar every second Saturday. Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha, sitting singly, found that the arrangement — requiring the child to travel approximately 1,000 kilometres by return trip each month, including after a full school day on Friday — was unsustainable and contrary to the child's paramount welfare. The court disposed of the writ petition by substituting a less burdensome visitation schedule while preserving the mother's right to spend time with her son.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The petitioner, Sri Ajay Hegde K, resides at Electronic City Phase-I, Bengaluru. The respondent, Smt. Chitra Umamaheshwar Bhat, resides at Arolli, Honnavar Taluk, Uttara Kannada District. Matrimonial proceedings are pending between them in M.C. No. 39/2023 before the family court at Honnavar.

In those proceedings, the wife filed I.A. No. II seeking custody of their son, Atharva, aged around 10 years, who lives with the father and is enrolled at Delhi Public School, Bengaluru. The family court allowed the application and directed the father to hand over Atharva to the mother on every second Saturday at or before 10.00 a.m. and to receive him back the following Sunday before 11.00 a.m. The father was also directed to hand over the child during the second half of all school vacations.

Aggrieved by that order dated 10 March 2026, the father filed Writ Petition No. 16393 of 2026 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the directions.

What Each Side Argued

Counsel for the father, Sri Nagaraja H.R., pressed a straightforward factual concern: the distance between Bengaluru and Honnavar is approximately 475 kilometres. Under the impugned schedule, Atharva would be required to travel close to 1,000 kilometres each month. This, counsel submitted, was affecting the child's health.

Counsel for the mother, Sri P.B. Umesh appearing for Sri R.B. Deshpande, countered that the couple has two children. Atharva, the elder, is with the father; the younger child is with the mother. The mother is affectionate towards Atharva and he towards her. At least once a month, she must be permitted to see and attend to him. Counsel submitted that the family court's order was therefore sustainable.

How the Court Reasoned

Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha accepted that the distance between Bengaluru and Honnavar — approximately 475 kilometres each way — was not in dispute. The court then examined what the impugned visitation schedule actually meant for Atharva in practice.

Under the family court's order, Atharva would attend school on Friday from morning to evening. After school hours, he would have to board a bus, train, or similar transport and travel 475 kilometres to Honnavar overnight. He would spend time with his mother over the weekend. On Sunday, he would travel 475 kilometres back to Bengaluru, arriving either late Sunday night or in the early hours of Monday. On Monday morning he would again be expected to sit in class for the full school day.

The court recorded that “a child of 10 years old cannot take up such a hectic task.” It observed that Atharva had, in effect, become a victim of the disputes between his parents. The primary consideration in any question of this kind is the paramount welfare of the child, and the visitation directions, as framed, were unsustainable on that ground.

At the same time, the court was clear that the mother's interest in maintaining a relationship with her son also had to be protected. The question was not whether the mother had a right to see Atharva — she plainly did — but whether the frequency and logistics imposed by the family court were proportionate to the child's capacity to bear them.

The court's resolution was to halve the frequency of in-person handovers. Instead of every second Saturday, the father would hand over the child every second Saturday of every alternate month. This preserves the mother's access while reducing the monthly travel burden on a 10-year-old.

Outcome

Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha disposed of the writ petition with the following directions in substitution of the family court's order:

• The father shall hand over custody of Atharva to the mother on every second Saturday of every alternate month, at or before 10.00 a.m.
• The father may take back custody on the following Sunday at around 10.00 a.m.
• If the mother receives custody of Atharva during a vacation falling in any month, the father need not hand over the child on the second Saturday of that month.

The directions in the impugned order dated 10 March 2026 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Honnavar in I.A. No. II in M.C. No. 39/2023 stand modified accordingly. The underlying matrimonial proceedings in M.C. No. 39/2023 continue before the family court.