Clear Violation Of Basic Human Rights: Madras High Court Imposes ₹5L Costs On Man For Forcibly Taking Away Daughter

The High Court was considering a writ petition filed by the mother seeking quashing of an order passed by the Family Court.

Update: 2026-08-25 15:30 GMT

Justice Chillakur Sumalatha, Karnataka High Court

The Madras High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakh on a man for forcibly taking away his own daughter from the Court premises. Asking him to hand over the child to her mother, the High Court held that the basic human rights of the child were violated.

The High Court was considering a writ petition filed by the mother seeking quashing of an order passed by the Family Court.

The Single Bench of Justice Chillakur Sumalatha held, “Basic human rights of the child are violated in this case. Abruptly taking the custody of the child without atleast enquiring the child whether she is willing to accompany and giving time to the child atleast to think about, to respond and to make up her mind, is in clear violation of basic human rights.”

“The respondent/father is directed to hand over the custody of the minor child by name to the petitioner/mother”, it ordered while also adding, “For taking the law into his hands, violating the orders of the Family Court as well as this Court and also violating the basic human rights of the child, respondent/father is directed to pay costs of Rs.5,00,000/-.”

Advocate B. Ramesh represented the Petitioner while Advocate Abhilesh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnised in the year 2015. They gave birth to a female child in the year 2019, but the mother and father started residing separately as disputes arose between them. The mother filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce. The father instituted a case seeking permanent custody of the child. The Father filed an application seeking interim custody as well as visitation rights of the child. The father was permitted to communicate with his daughter through audio/video calls on alternate days and have visitation rights on every fourth Sunday. Aggrieved by the visitation granted through the orders, the mother filed a writ petition.

It was the mother’s case that on July 18, 2026, she came to the Family Court, Bengaluru, with the child to attend her case and after the case was adjourned, the father abducted the child in his car. She got into the same car where the husband’s sister was also present. It was alleged that the father took the child to the residence of his sister, and the mother was forced to remain outside. The Police arrived at the spot and took her to the police station. The Respondent/father came to the police station along with the child, but he took the child away from the station without informing the police personnel. Since then, the child has been in the custody of the respondent/father. Aggrieved by the acts of respondent/father, petitioner/mother filed an application to direct respondent/father to produce the child and to restore the custody to her. However, the Family Court dismissed the said application, which led to the instant petition being filed before the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, stated, “Child's right to be treated with dignity, to live in secured atmosphere, to be protected from all kinds of abuse, audience before Courts of law, to participate in issues relating to family, to get education of his/her choice etc., is integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees Right to Life. One of the prime objects of establishing Family Courts in India is to preserve and promote these salutary rights.”

Condemning the act of the father taking the child from the Court premises, the Bench held, “For taking the child to his custody, it is expected on his part to consult the person with whom the custody is in accordance with law. Also, when he has moved an application for the custody of the child and interim visitation rights were also granted, violating every order of the Court of law, be that the Family Court or the High Court, the father has taken the custody of the child.”

The Bench stated that in case the respondent/father felt that the child would not be safe in the hands of the petitioner/mother, nothing could have prevented him from moving an application bringing to the notice of the Family Court about the same and seeking an order restraining the petitioner/mother from relocating the child from Bengaluru to Pune. The Bench took note of the fact that nothing of that sort appeared to be done till he had taken the custody of the child without any order of the Court.

The Bench was of the view that the conduct of respondent/father showed his disobedience towards the Courts of law and the orders passed. “Also this Court perceives that the basic human rights of the child are violated”, it added.

The Bench concluded the matter by directing the father to handover the child to the mother and also asking him to pay Rs 5 lakh for violating the orders of the Family Court and the basic human rights of the child. “Out of the costs imposed, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be paid to the Army Welfare Fund”, it ordered.

The Bench further ordered that the remaining amount of Rs 4 lakh be deposited by way of Fixed Deposit in any of the nationalized bank in the name of the child and clarified that the child could withdraw the amount on attaining the age of majority.