Karnataka High Court Takes Cognizance against Former Wife in Contempt Petition Over Child Custody Dispute

Pune, 30th August 2025: In a significant development in an on-going high profile family court matter, the Karnataka High Court has taken serious cognizance and initiated a contempt proceedings in a contempt petition filed by a father who is also the former husband of the accused wife through his legal counsel Advocate Aashuutosh Srivastava alleging wilful disobedience of a prior court order regarding joint custody and welfare decisions for his minor child.

The case pertains to a mutual divorce settlement between the parties wherein entire alimony was accepted by the former wife, and both parents had jointly agreed as recorded in the court order, dated June 7, 2023 that decisions concerning the child’s education and welfare would be made mutually with the consent of both mother and father. Contrary to this binding agreement, the wife allegedly unilaterally relocated the child from Pune to Bengaluru and withdrew the child from school without informing or obtaining the consent of the father. Following this, the father was deprived of all contact with the child, prompting him to approach the Karnataka High Court through his legal counsel Aashuutosh Srivastava, a noted lawyer known for his expertise in high-stakes family and criminal matters.

After hearing substantial arguments presented by Adv. Srivastava, the High Court observed that the mother’s actions constituted a clear violation of the earlier court order and were not in the best interest of the child. The court further remarked that the unilateral decision to remove the child from school and change location contravenes the terms of the mutual settlement that was formally accepted and recorded by the court.

In a strong move, the High Court has directed the “framing of charges” against the accused mother for contempt on the next date of hearing, October 30, 2025, for wilful disobedience of its previous order. The Court has also directed the personal appearance of the accused, the child’s mother, on the said date.

This case highlights the critical importance of adhering to mutually agreed legal settlements, particularly where the welfare of a minor is concerned. The matter remains sub judice.