Sri K N Jagadesh Kumar vs The Home Secretary on 7 June, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2017

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N K SUDHINDRARAO

WPHC NO.21/2017
BETWEEN:

SRI K N JAGADESH KUMAR
S/O LATE B. NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
LEGAL ADVISER
R/AT NO.530, KODIGEHALLI,
SAHAKARANAGARA POST,
BENGALURU-560 092.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.K N JAGADISH KUMAR, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

AND:

1. THE HOME SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
BENGALURU CITY
INFANTRY ROAD,
2

BENGALURU-560 001.

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
NORTH EAST DIVISION,
BANGALORE CITY,
SAHAKARANAGARA,
BANGALORE-560092.

4. THE POLICE INSPECTOR
KODIGEHALLI POLICE STATION,
MARUTHI LAYOUT,
VIRUPAKSHAPURA,
VIDYARANYAPURA POST,
BENGALURU-560 097.

5. MRS. SMITA J GOWDA
D/O GOSAIBHAI PATEL,
ROW HOUSE NO: 04,
DHANASHREE CHS,
PLOT NO.31, SECTOR-02,
KOPERKHAIRNE, NAVI MUMBAI,
MUMBAI-400709.

(DETUNE)
ARYA J. GOWDA
C/O GOSAIBHAI PATEL,
ROW HOUSE NO:04,
DHANASHREE CHS,
PLOT NO.31, SECTOR-02,
KOPERKHAIRNE, NAVI MUMBAI,
MUMBAI-400709.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.I.THARANATH POOJARY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI.AMIT MANDGI, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
3

THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, IS FILED BY THE
PETITIONER (PARTY-IN-PERSON) PRAYS TO ISSUE 1)
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF HABEAS CORPUS
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT FROM 1 TO 4
IMMEDIATELY TRACE MY SON BY NAME MASTER ARYA
J GOWDA OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THIS HON’BLE
COURT WITHIN STIPULATED TIME WITHOUT ANY
FURTHER DELAY KEEPING BETTER WELFARE AND
DETONATING HEALTH CONDITION OF THE GROWING
CHILD. 2) THE PETITIONER IS NOT APPEALING FOR THE
CUSTODY OF CHILD AS THERE IS A G W.C. PETITION
IS PENDING BEFORE FAMILY COURT BUT HAS A
DOUBT THAT CHILD ITSELF IS NOT ALIVE AS HIS
WHEREABOUTS ARE HIDDEN BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT AND OTHERS FOR LAST 4 YEARS, IN
THIS SITUATION TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S AS
HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT PROPER BY
CONSIDERING DOCUMENTS AND SITUATION OF THE
CASE.

READ  Chandrasekaran-vs-State: Rep. By on 20 August, 2003

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
4

ORDER

The petitioner-father has preferred the present

petition by making allegation that his wife has

wrongfully detained the corpus Arya J.Gowda, his son.

2. It has been stated by the learned Counsel

appearing for respondent No.5 that the matter was

referred to the Mediation Centre and in the Mediation

Centre, the corpus was also produced by the mother.

But uptil now there is no settlement.

3. The petitioner has himself stated in paragraphs-

21 and 23 as under:

21. It is submitted that the “Petitioner” Filed a G
W.C Petition No: 152/2016 before the
Principal Family Judge Bangalore for handover
the custody of the child permanently to father
which was for better care welfare. A True
copy of “Order sheet” Of G. W.C Petition is
been produced and marked as ANNEXURE-C.

5

23. It is submitted that the “Petitioner” filed the
Divorce petition before the 2nd Additional family
court Mc.No:5397/2016 appealing to grant the
Divorce decree from her wife and this
relationship which was standing only for name
sake.”

The aforesaid shows that the child is in the custody of

his mother who is otherwise also a natural guardian.

The proceedings for custody as well as divorce are also

pending before the appropriate Court. Under the

circumstances, it is not possible to believe that the child

is wrongfully detained, but the petitioner may pursue

the appropriate proceedings before the Family Court for

production of the child or otherwise as may be available

READ  Sanjib Nath-vs-State Of West Bengal on 27 July, 2007

under law and at that stage, rights and contentions of

respondent No.5 shall also remain open.
6

3. The petitioner voiced the grievance that in the

proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, before

the Family Court, respondent No.5 is not represented by

anybody and she is also not responding to the process

of the Court.

4. Learned Counsel for respondent No.5 stated

that after filing of the petition she is now represented

through Mrs.Ujwala Mandgi, learned Counsel.

5. Under these circumstances, we do not find that

there are any extraordinary circumstances to make a

departure, more particularly, when the matters are

pending before the appropriate Court.

6. Under the circumstances, leaving the parties to

agitate their rights as may be available in law before the

appropriate Court in the respective proceedings, we do

not find that the present petition deserves to be further

continued.

7

7. Hence disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

JT/-

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *