Karnataka HC Imposes Rs 5 Lakh Costs on Father Who Snatched Daughter From Court Premises, Violating Multiple Custody Orders

The Karnataka High Court set aside a Family Court order that had dismissed the mother's plea, directed the father to produce the child before court on 25 August 2026, and imposed Rs 5 lakh costs for violating judicial orders and the child's basic human rights.

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru allowed a writ petition filed by a mother challenging the dismissal of her application to recover her minor daughter, who had been taken away by the father from the Family Court premises itself. Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha, sitting singly, found that the father had acted in clear violation of orders passed both by the Family Court and by the High Court in an earlier writ petition, and that the child's basic human rights had been violated. The court set aside the Family Court's order dated 29 July 2026 on I.A. No. VII in G & WC No. 319/2025, directed the father to produce the child before the Family Court on 25 August 2026, and imposed costs of Rs 5 lakh on him.

The Marriage, the Child, and Parallel Proceedings

The petitioner, Smt. Manpreeth R., aged 32, and the respondent, Sri. Sandeep R., aged 37, married in 2015. Their daughter, Kum. Samanvi S., was born in 2019. After disputes arose, the spouses began residing separately. The mother filed M.C. No. 4991/2025 seeking dissolution of marriage by divorce, while the father instituted G & WC No. 319/2025 before the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, seeking permanent custody of Samanvi.

In those guardianship proceedings, the father also filed I.A. No. II for interim custody and visitation rights. That application was disposed of on 17 April 2026. The order granted the father audio/video communication with Samanvi on alternate days for 20 minutes, visitation on every fourth Sunday from 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and overnight custody from 4:00 p.m. every second Friday to 6:00 p.m. every second Sunday. During overnight custody, the mother was allowed communication twice a day for 15 minutes.

The Earlier Writ Petition and the High Court's Modified Order

The mother, aggrieved by the visitation schedule fixed in the 17 April 2026 order, filed Writ Petition No. 19158/2026 before this court. That petition was disposed of on 22 July 2026. The High Court modified the Family Court's order: the father retained audio/video communication on alternate days for 20 minutes, but his in-person custody was restructured to once a month for two days. The father was directed to collect Samanvi from the mother after school hours on Friday and return her at Pune by 8:00 p.m. or 9:00 p.m. on Sunday. The father was permitted to spend time with the child either at Pune or by taking her to Bengaluru.

The High Court's order thus expressly recognised that the mother was residing at Pune and structured the exchange accordingly.

How the Father Took the Child From the Court Premises

On 18 July 2026, the mother brought Samanvi to the Family Court, Bengaluru, to attend her case. The father was also present. After the case was adjourned, the father took the child into his car. The mother followed and got into the same car. The father's sister, Smt. Sindhu, was also in the vehicle. The father did not hand the child over. They drove to Smt. Sindhu's residence, where Samanvi was taken inside while the mother was kept outside.

The mother called the emergency number 112. Police arrived and took her to the police station. Sampigehalli Police contacted the father, who came to the station with the child but then left with Samanvi again without informing police. The father did not answer subsequent calls. From that point, the child remained in the father's custody.

The mother filed I.A. No. VII in G & WC No. 319/2025 before the Family Court, seeking a direction to the father to produce Samanvi and restore custody. The Family Court dismissed the application. The mother then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Father's Justification Before the High Court

Counsel for the father conceded that the father's act of taking the child “may be improper in the eye of law,” but argued that as a father he was justified. The submission was that the child would not be safe with the mother, who had relocated to Pune without disclosing her residential address there, making it impossible for the father to exercise visitation rights. It was also argued that the mother, working at Bengaluru originally, left the child alone at Pune when she went to work, whereas at Bengaluru the father had his mother, sister, and relatives to care for Samanvi.

How the High Court Reasoned

Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha rejected the father's justification in its entirety. The court observed that the child was taken away “as if she is a commodity or lifeless object,” without even asking whether she was willing to accompany, or giving her time to respond. The court held that this was a clear violation of the child's basic human rights.

The court then anchored the child's rights in Article 21 of the Constitution, holding that the right to be treated with dignity, to live in a secure atmosphere, to be protected from abuse, to be heard before courts, and to participate in family decisions are all part of the Right to Life. Courts, the bench stated, must remain vigilant in guardianship and custody matters, and emotions must not override legal rights.

On the father's substantive grievance about the mother's relocation to Pune, the court was direct: if the father genuinely believed the child was unsafe or that the relocation was problematic, the proper course was to move an application before the Family Court seeking to restrain the mother from relocating the child, not to take the law into his own hands. No such application appears to have been filed.

The court also pointed to an internal inconsistency in the Family Court's own order dated 29 July 2026. At paragraph 18 of that order, the Family Court had directed parties to honour the High Court's modified order of 22 July 2026. Yet under that very order, custody was required to be with the mother. The Family Court nonetheless dismissed I.A. No. VII without restoring custody. The High Court found this approach indefensible and set the order aside.

Costs and Their Apportionment

For taking the law into his own hands, violating the orders of the Family Court and the High Court, and violating the basic human rights of the child, the court imposed costs of Rs 5,00,000 on the father. The costs were apportioned as follows:

• Rs 1,00,000 to be paid to the Army Welfare Fund.
• Rs 4,00,000 to be deposited by way of Fixed Deposit in any nationalised bank in the name of the child, Kum. Samanvi S., withdrawable by her on attaining the age of majority.

The court further directed that the father shall not be permitted to conduct the case in G & WC No. 319/2025 until proof of payment of costs in the manner indicated is produced before the court.

Order

Writ Petition No. 24828 of 2026 was allowed. The order dated 29 July 2026 passed by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, on I.A. No. VII in G & WC No. 319/2025 was set aside. The father was directed to hand over custody of Kum. Samanvi S. to the mother and to produce the child before the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, at 10:30 a.m. on 25 August 2026. The Family Court was directed to hand over custody of the child to the mother at that hearing. Costs of Rs 5,00,000 were imposed on the father with the apportionment described above, and his right to prosecute G & WC No. 319/2025 was stayed pending proof of payment.