IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT PETITION (HC) NO.100 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA WIFE OF LATE GANGADHARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.453, 3RD CROSS, OPPOSITE TO BET CONVENT, BEML COMPLEX, R.R. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 098.
REPRESENTED BY HIS COUNSEL B. SHEIK MOURTHUJA AND ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES NO.28, AMAR TOWER, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, GANDHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 009.
(BY SRI SHEIK MOURTHUJA B., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ... PETITIONER DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001, KARNATAKA STATE.
3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE WILSON GARDEN POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560 027.
4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560 098.
5. PURUSHOTHAMAN G SON OF GOVINDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.85-86, SREENIDHI, NRUPATHUNGA EXTENSION, 3RD MAIN, "A" CROSS, SHETTIHALLI ROAD, TUMAKURU-572 132.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI E.S. INDIRESH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 TO TAKE IMMEDIATE STEPS TO FIND OUT THE PETITIONER'S GRANDDAUGHTER WHO WAS TAKEN AWAY BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 AND WHEREABOUTS THE CHILD IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER FROM 10.07.2019 AND ETC.
***** THIS WPHC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed seeking a writ of habeas corpus to produce the detenue-child, the granddaughter of the petitioners, who is said to have been having illegally taken away by respondent No.5.
2. The material on record would indicate that respondent No.5 is the father of the child. The plea of the petitioners is that the child was forcibly taken away by respondent No.5. It was also brought on record that a petition under Guardian And Wards Act, 1890, has also been filed by respondent No.5 seeking custody of the child. That the said proceedings are pending consideration.
3. In view of the fact that the child is in the custody of her father, it cannot be said that she is in illegal detention. The detention with the father cannot be considered as illegal. Under these circumstances, we find no merit to proceed further. The petition is dismissed.
However, liberty is always reserved to the petitioners to prosecute their rights in the petition pending under Guardian and Wards Act, 1890.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ