Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Sri P M Chengappa vs The State Of Karnataka And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|30 May, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO WPHC NO.73/2017 BETWEEN:
SRI P M CHENGAPPA S/O P S MADAPPA AGE 43 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ADVOCATE R/O 2102, SRI AMBIKA 8TH MAIN, “D” BLOCK 2ND STAGE RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU 560010 (BY SMT.SONA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ...PETITIONER REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER SUBRAMANYANAGAR P S BANGALORE CITY 3. SMT SEETHA DEVI W/O BADUVANDA B KARIAPPA AGE 70 YEARS, R/O SHIVA SADAN, MURNAD TOWN NORTH KODAGU DIST-571252 4. BADUVANDA B. KARIAPPA S/O LATE B K BELIAPPA AGE 75 YEARS, R/O SHIVA SADAN, MURNAD TOWN NORTH KODAGU DIST-571252 DETENU MASTER P C SOMAIAH S/O P M CHENGAPPA AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, R/O 2102, SRI AMBIKA, 8TH MAIN, “D” BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560010 REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER GUARDIAN SMT LAXMI KARIAPPA B W/O P M CHENGAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O 2102, SRI AMBIKA, 8TH MAIN “D” BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560010 AT PRESENT RESIDING AT R/O SHIVA SADAN, MURNAD TOWN, NORTH KODAGU DIST-571252 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.I.THARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF HABEAS CORPUS BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO PRODUCE THE DETENUE BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner in capacity as the father for setting his son Master P.C.Somaiah free on the allegation that he has been wrongfully confined by his wife Smt.Lakshmi and in-laws.
2. As the advance copy was served, Sri I.Tharanath Poojary, AGA has made arrangement to see that corpus is present with the mother as well as the father-in-law of the petitioner.
3. We have verified the freewill and desire of the corpus. The corpus is aged 13 years. From the discussion we had with the corpus, it is found by us that he is quite matured and he is also in a position to understand the consequence and the dispute between the father and the mother. He has gone voluntarily with the mother and he is desirous to stay with the mother.
4. The father-in-law Mr.Baduvanda B.Kariappa respondent no.4 is present. In order to see that the interest of the child is protected, we had put certain questions to respondent no.4. Respondent no.4 has stated before us that, principally, the maintenance liability of the corpus is of the father but, he is ready to make all arrangements in order to see that the education and welfare of corpus is not put to jeopardy. It has been stated that the aforesaid is without prejudice to the rights of respondent no.3 his daughter Smt.Lakshmi as well as the corpus Master P.C.Somaiah to get the maintenance in accordance with law from his father i.e. the petitioner herein.
5. In view of the above, we do not find that there is any wrongful confinement. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition.
6. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, as a good gesture, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that her client shall deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) which may be made available to his son Somaiah through his mother Lakshmi and such amount shall be deposited within two weeks.
7. Hence, we find it appropriate to direct that the petitioner shall deposit the amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) within two weeks with this Court. After the amount is deposited, it would be open to Master P.C.Somaiah through his mother Lakshmi to withdraw the amount and such amount shall be used for the education purpose and betterment of Master P.C.Somaiah.
8. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
9. It is observed, any other rights and contentions of the parties in accordance with law shall remain open and the present order shall operate only with the purpose to free will and desire of the corpus Master P.C.Somaiah.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Sk/-
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sri P M Chengappa vs The State Of Karnataka And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
30 May, 2017
Judges
  • N K Sudhindrarao
  • Jayant Patel