IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH W.P.H.C.NO. 68 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
MR SYED YASEEN S/O SYED IQBAL AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.385/E-4, 12TH CROSS, ILYAS NAGAR BENGALURU- 560 078.
(BY SRI NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DEPARTMENT OF HOME ROOM NO.21, 2ND FLOOR VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU- 01.
... PETITIONER REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 001.
3. INSPECTOR OF POLICE NANDINI LAYOUT POLICE STATION BENGALURU - 560 096.
4. MRS. JABEENA TAJ W/O.SYED SHABBIR NO.11, 5TH MAIN, KRISHNANDA NAGAR NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 096.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SANDESH J. CHOUTA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONG WITH SRI. S. V. GIRIKUMAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO PASS WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO HANDOVER THE CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILDREN NAMELY SYED ANAS AND SYED SHAFIQ TO THE PETITIONER / FATHER FORTHWITH ALONG WITH THEIR BELONGINGS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS WPHC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The learned Additional Advocate General accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. This petition is filed seeking for a writ of habeas corpus to direct respondent No.4 to hand over the custody of the minor children to the petitioner and consequential reliefs.
3. There are various office objections. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has addressed arguments on merits. He contends that the petition requires to be allowed and custody be ordered.
4. The same is disputed by the Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. He pleads that the petitioner has already filed G&WC No.107 of 2019 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, seeking for appointment of the petitioner as the guardian of the minor son and consequential reliefs. Therefore, the question of considering the contentions of the petitioner does not arise for consideration.
5. Heard learned counsels.
6. We do not find any ground to entertain this petition. The petitioner has filed a petition before the appropriate Court seeking the relief as sought to be pleaded in this petition. Therefore, on that ground alone, the petition cannot be entertained.
7. Under these circumstances, we do not find any ground to entertain this petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
The learned Additional Advocate General is permitted to file memo of appearance in four weeks.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE VMB