The High Court of Karnataka has set aside an interim order that had prevented a mother from meeting her minor daughter during an ongoing guardianship dispute with the child’s grandmother and aunt. The court observed that a natural parent cannot be completely excluded from a child’s life unless there are compelling circumstances showing risk to the child’s welfare.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose after the death of businessman Amit Banerji in January 2025. Following his death, disagreements reportedly emerged within the family regarding custody of the couple’s daughter and issues connected to the deceased’s estate.
The child’s grandmother and aunt approached the Family Court under the Guardian and Wards Act seeking appointment as guardians of the minor child and also sought interim protection regarding custody. An ex parte interim injunction was passed in May 2025 restraining the mother from interfering with the child’s custody.
Read also:- Mother Cannot Be Completely Cut Off From Child Without Proof of Unfitness: Karnataka High Court
Later, the Family Court continued the restraint order and denied visitation rights to the mother until completion of the child’s examinations. Challenging that decision, the mother moved the Karnataka High Court through writ petitions.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that she had been caring for the child since birth and had managed every aspect of her upbringing, including schooling, medical care and emotional support.
Her counsel contended that the proceedings initiated by the grandmother and aunt were connected to larger property and succession disputes following the death of the child’s father. It was also argued that the mother had been unfairly separated from the child for several months and that complete denial of access was legally unsustainable.
Justice Dr. K. Manmadha Rao noted that the dispute was not between two natural guardians but between the child’s mother on one side and other relatives on the other.
The court observed,
“An order of injunction at the interlocutory stage cannot be passed in a manner that completely excludes a natural parent from access to the child.”
The bench further said that such exclusion could only be justified if there was material showing prima facie unfitness of the parent or an imminent risk to the child’s welfare.
Referring to Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the court reiterated that the mother remains the natural guardian after the father. The judge found no exceptional circumstance on record that justified total denial of maternal access.
The court also expressed caution regarding reliance on the child’s interaction with the Family Court during the interim stage. Since the child had remained in the exclusive custody of the respondents for a considerable period, the possibility of influence could not be ignored, the bench observed.
The High Court referred to earlier Supreme Court rulings emphasizing that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody matters.
The bench observed that completely excluding a mother from the life of a growing child could have serious emotional consequences and may contribute to parental alienation. According to the court, concerns relating to examinations or routine stability may justify regulated interaction, but not a blanket prohibition on access.
Allowing both writ petitions, the Karnataka High Court set aside the Family Court’s January 12, 2026 order insofar as it restrained the mother from accessing the child.
The court clarified that it had only examined the legality of the interim injunction and had not decided the final custody dispute. All questions relating to custody, visitation and guardianship were left open for determination by the Family Court after a full trial.
Case Details:
Case Title: Mrs. Shruti Sood alias Shruti Banerji v. Mrs. Sarita Banerji & Anr.
Case Number: W.P. No. 5971 of 2026 c/w W.P. No. 4443 of 2026
Judge: Justice Dr. K. Manmadha Rao
Decision Date: April 24, 2026
