Karnataka High Court
Mr Asifulla Shariff vs Mrs Ruksar Banu on 18 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:54212-DB
MFA No. 3674 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3674 OF 2023 (GW)
BETWEEN:
MR.ASIFULLA SHARIFF,
S/O KIFAYTHULLA SHARIF,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/O AGASAVALLI VILLAGE,
HAIHOLE ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.J.D.KASHINATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MRS.RUKSAR BANU,
D/O ANWAR PASHA,
Digitally
signed by K G AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
RENUKAMBA R/O NEAR BILAL MASJID,
Location: 1ST CROSS LEFT SIDE,
HIGH COURT TIPPU NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA.
OF
[[
WARD: ARHAM SHARIFF,
KARNATAKA
S/O ASIFULLA SHARIFF,
AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NEAR BILAL MASJID,
1ST CROSS LEFT SIDE,
TIPPU NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.MALLAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.KAMARAJU, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:54212-DB
MFA No. 3674 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.47(a) OF GUARDIANS AND
WARDS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
03.06.2022 PASSED ON G AND WC NO.15/2021 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, SHIVAMOGGA,
DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 7, 10 AND
25 OF THE GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed seeking to challenge the judgment and decree dated 03.06.2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Shivamogga in G & WC No.15/2021. By means of the impugned judgment, the petition filed by the appellant/petitioner under Section 7, 10 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 seeking custody of his minor child, was dismissed. -3-
NC: 2025:KHC:54212-DB MFA No. 3674 of 2023 HC-KAR
3. Pursuant to the previous order of the Court the parties are present in person in the Court. The respondent has also come with their son namely Arhaam Shareeff. The parties have produced their respective Aadhar Cards and have also been identified by their respective advocates. The parties have acknowledged that they were husband and wife to each other prior to the Khula Nama of 2021. It is also admitted to the parties that Arhaam Shareeff, the minor child is the biological child of the parties, born from the wedlock.
4. After hearing the parties, the family Court had framed the following points for consideration.
POINTS
1. Whether petitioner proves that he is the father of minor ward by name Arhaam Shareef?
2. Whether petitioner made out grounds to allow the petition?
3. What order?
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:54212-DB MFA No. 3674 of 2023 HC-KAR
5. The answers of the Family Court to the said points are as under:
"Point No.1: In the negative. Point No.2: In the negative.
Point No.3: As per final order for the Following:"
6. As regards points No.1 to 3 the Family Court seems to have been under a misconception as to the name of the appellant/petitioner. When the admitted fact is that the name of the appellant is Asif Ulla Shariff, and the name of the former wife is Ruksar Banu and both have acknowledged each other in their presence today in Court, this aspect of the matter therefore, as dealt with by the trial Court, deserves no credence. It is admitted to the parties that the Khula Nama dated 31.10.2021 was obtained by the wife which brought to an end their marriage which was solemnised on 20.04.2017. It appears that in the examination-in-chief, the petitioner/appellant had stated that at the time of Khula Nama a condition was imposed that every month for 15 days, the custody of the minor ward would be with him and for 15 days, it would be -5- NC: 2025:KHC:54212-DB MFA No. 3674 of 2023 HC-KAR in the custody of the respondent. It was only on that condition that he admitted to give Khula Nama in presence of the witnesses. The Court noted that the petitioner/appellant had not examined his blood related close sisters or witnesses to corroborate his case with regard to the condition imposed at the time of Khula Nama nor had he offered any explanation what restrained him to examine the said witnesses of blood related close sisters. Therefore, the Family Court had said that it cannot be said that the child is the minor ward of the petitioner/ appellant and his son. Accordingly, point No.1 was answered in the negative.
7. Admittedly, the petitioner thereafter has entered into another marriage with Afreen Banu and leading his marital life with her and that he has 2 minor children from the second marriage. The trial Court was of the view that since the appellant/petitioner had undergone a second marriage, it may not be possible for him to give love and affection towards the minor ward. When the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:54212-DB MFA No. 3674 of 2023 HC-KAR appellant/petitioner is residing with his second wife, the boy may not get natural love and affection from him. The petitioner/appellant, it appears had not disclosed whether his second wife got children or not before the Family Court. Accordingly, the Family Court concluded that it was not just and fair to give custody of the minor ward to the appellant/petitioner.
8. The income of the appellant/petitioner was doubted on the ground, amongst others, that the unregistered partnership firm document that was produced, being not registered, would not be proof of the fact that the petitioner and his brother are partners and running a shop under the name and style of Shariff Fashion Hub. Accordingly, it was held by the Family Court that availability of sufficient income was not demonstrated by the appellant/petitioner. Other documents including trade license etc., produced by the appellant were also discarded. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC:54212-DB MFA No. 3674 of 2023 HC-KAR
9. We find from perusal of the aforesaid judgment, that it has been passed without due consideration. In our opinion it is a fit case for remand. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Family Court concerned for adjudication after permitting the parties to lead evidence. We would request the Court concerned to proceed with the matter expeditiously.
10. In the meantime, since the appellant, being the father of the minor child, cannot be denied visitation rights, we direct that;
(i) The appellant-father shall be permitted by the respondent and her family members to visit the minor child on first and third Sunday of every month
(ii) The father can interact with the minor child in and around the residence of the respondent.
(iii) The matter will not be precipitated by any of the parties by allowing any untoward -8- NC: 2025:KHC:54212-DB MFA No. 3674 of 2023 HC-KAR incident happening at the time of the visitation we have permitted.
(iv) The appellant-father shall be permitted to interact with his child any time between 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. for a maximum period of one hour.
(v) After a period of three months from today, the parties shall be at liberty to apply to the Family Court for modification of visitation/interim custody rights as they may seek, which the Family Court shall consider in accordance with law given the overarching consideration of what is in the best interest of the child.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, this appeal is allowed.
Since the parties are present, we direct the parties shall appear before the Family Court concerned on -9- NC: 2025:KHC:54212-DB MFA No. 3674 of 2023 HC-KAR 07.01.2026, whereafter the Family Court shall fix the next date for proceeding with the matter.
It is made clear that the interim visitation right that we permit shall be effective forthwith, that to say, the first visitation is permitted on 21.12.2025.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8