Karnataka High Court
CCC/1305/2025 of SRI. K. S. HARSHA, Vs SRI. LEYAKATH. M on 10 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010651652025 NC: 2026:KHC:49174-DB CCC No. 1305 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1305 OF 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
[SHRI. KIRAN KUMAR. S VS. SMT. SOWMYA. N]
10.09.2026
(VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) When the matter was listed on 22.07.2026, the following order was passed: “1. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant was present at the Karnataka Mediation Center at Nyaya Degula Building, on 05.07.2026 as well as on 19.07.2026 as agreed between the parties and as recorded by order dated 16.06.2026. The complainant says that on 15.07.2026, the Mediation Center was closed and on 19.07.2026, the accused failed to appear. However, the accused is present in court and says that she was present on 19.07.2026 at 4.00 p.m. along with the child till 4.45 p.m.
2. Let the Karnataka Mediation Center submit a report as to whether the parties were present on the said date.
3. List on 20.08.2026.
4. In the meanwhile, the arrangement recorded in the order dated 16.06.2026 shall continue.”
Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
The complainant and the accused are present in Court. The counsel for the complainant states that on the date fixed before the Mediation Center, the accused had reached the Mediation Centre with the child at 04.20 p.m., but refused to allow the complainant to meet with the child till her lawyer arrived. The lawyer reached at 04.50 p.m. The visitation time was for two (2) hours between 04.00 p.m. to 06.00 p.m. For want of the advocate for the accused, the complainant lost out on 50 minutes of time with the child.
The Karnataka Mediation Center's report is dated 13.08.2026. It speaks about the visitation days on 21.06.2026 and 19.07.2026. On 21.06.2026, it is stated that the respondent / mother brought the child to the KMC at about 04.30 p.m. and remained at the Center along with the child till 06.00 p.m. and during that period, the complainant / father was afforded the opportunity to exercise his visitation rights. However, on 19.07.2026 the accused did not appear at the KMC during the stipulated visitation period between 04.00 p.m. and 06.00 p.m.
It is stated that pursuant to an order dated 22.07.2026 passed by this Court, the Director of the KMC had personally verified the CCTV footage available in the repository of the Karnataka Mediation Center pertaining to the relevant period. Upon such verification, it was noticed that the F.D.A deputed by the Center as well as the complainant were present and seen in the premises of the KMC between approximately 03.45 p.m. to 06.05 p.m. on 19.07.2026. The CCTV footage does not disclose the presence of the respondent / accused along with the child during the relevant period. Therefore, the report is that the accused Sowmya N, did not appear at the KMC, Bangalore along with the child on 19.07.2026 during the stipulated visitation period. We note with concern the conduct of the accused, firstly that on the first day of appearance before the KMC, she arrives late with the child and on the second day she does not appear at all during the stipulated period. However, since an adjournment is being sought on behalf of the accused, list on 19.09.2026, on which date the accused shall remain present for framing of charge.
It goes without saying that the visitation rights permitted by the Court shall be continued in strict compliance by the parties, before the KMC.
Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE
Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE
KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11