IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL.R.B
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
W.P.H.C.NO.13 OF 2018
SMT.MANJU MALINI SESHACHALAM
D/O MR. R. SESHACHALAM
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
J BLOCK PRIDE PRISTINE
SHREE ANANTHA NAGAR
BANGALORE – 560 100 …PETITIONER
(BY MS. JAYASREE NARASIMHAN FOR
SMT. UDITA RAMESH, ADV.)
1. VIJAY THIRUGNANAM
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
W/o VIJAY THIRUGNANAM
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
BOTH R/AT FLAT #1002, 16TH BLOCK,
ZING BLOCK, SUNCITY APARTMENT
IBLUR BANGALORE – 560 102
3. INSPECTOR OF POLICE
BELLANDUR POLICE STATION
37, SARJAPUR MAIN ROAD,
AMBLIPURA, PWD QUARTERS
1ST SECTOR, BELLANDUR
BENGALURU – 560 103
4. STATE OF KARNATAKA
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (PCAS)
ROOM NO.219, II FLOOR
BENGALURU – 560 001
5. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
BENGALURU – 560 001
6. MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
UNION OF INDIA
NEW DELHI …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.S.DWARAKANATH, ADV. FOR
SRI R.S.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R1 R2;
SRI A.M.SURESH REDDY, AGA FOR R3 R5
NOTICE TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER
THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO
RESPONDENTS TO CAUSE THE PRODUCTION OF THE
PERSON OF DETENUE BABY TANISHA KAMALKUMAR, AGED
ABOUT 7 YEARS BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT AND
HANDOVER THE DETENUE TO THE LEGAL CUSTODY OF
THIS WPHC HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS
ON 05.04.2018 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., PRONOUNCED THE
“Whether Baby Tanishka is under illegal detention of
respondents 1 and 2 warranting issue of Habeas Corpus
against them ?” is the question involved in this case.
2. Petitioner is the mother of Baby Tanishka aged
7 years. Respondent No.2 is the younger sister of
petitioner. Respondent No.1 is the husband of respondent
No.2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are issueless. Though the
petitioner is Indian born, she has acquired the Canadian
Citizenship. Baby Tanishka is born on 04.06.2010 in
Oakville in Halton region of Province of Ontario, Canada
out of the wedlock of the petitioner and Sri Kamalkumar
Venugopal Chenguttai. Baby Tanishka has the Canadian
Citizenship and is the Overseas Citizen of India.
3. Matrimonial discord arose between the
petitioner and her husband Kamalkumar Venugopal
Chenguttai which led to the legal proceedings for
dissolution of marriage. Ultimately the Hamilton Court of
Justice, by its Order dated 18.01.2012 dissolved the
marriage of petitioner and Kamalkumar Venugopal
Chenguttai with effect from 21.02.2012. In those
proceedings vide Order Annexure-F, the Hamilton Court
has granted the sole custody of Baby Tanishka to the
4. Baby Tanishka was diagnosed with feeding
aversion since her infancy and therefore by surgical
procedure G-tube was inserted and she was being fed
through the same. Since the petitioner had to struggle the
matrimonial litigations and take care of the child single
handedly, in the year 2011 she along with baby Tanishka
flew down to India so that her mother can take care of the
5. On 15.07.2011, petitioner executed Annexure-
G the deed of authorization, in favour of her mother Latha
Seshachalam to hold custody of baby Tanishka until her
return from abroad. On 30.01.2012 she has executed
Annexure-H the power of attorney in favour of her mother
Latha Seshachalam to act as the legal guardian of her
daughter baby Tanishka to look-after her welfare.
6. The above facts are undisputed one. The
contentious case of the petitioner is as follows:
Respondents 1 and 2 requested her mother Latha
Seshachalam to go and stay with them and therefore she
along with detenue Tanishka shifted to the house of
respondent Nos.1 and 2. Since respondent Nos.1 and 2
are issueless, they enjoyed the company of baby Tanishka.
In July 2012 when the petitioner came down to pickup her
child, respondent Nos.1 and 2 declined to part with the
child. They requested that they be given some time as
they are attached to the child. Respondent No.2 even
threatened to commit suicide. Having regard to the said
facts and the relationship between the parties she returned
to Canada, but continued her requests to respondent Nos.1
and 2 to return the child. During her visit to Bengaluru in
March 2015 and December 2015, respondent Nos.1 and 2
declined the petitioner, the opportunity to speak to the
child. In March 2016 they even threw away Smt.Latha
Seshachalam the legal guardian of the child out of their
house detaining the child Tanishka with themselves.
Thereafter the petitioner moved pillar to post visiting
respondent Nos.3 to 6 for recovery of the child but in vain.
Respondents 1 and 2 have illegally detained the child and
welfare of the child suffers in their custody and thus she
seeks writ of habeas corpus against the respondents.
7. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in their statement of
objections contest the claim of the petitioner on the
(i) Having regard to the turmoil in her
matrimonial life and the child’s health condition, the
petitioner was not able to look after the child. Therefore
she herself left the child under the care and custody of
respondent Nos.1 and 2. Having regard to such consensual
act, the petitioner cannot contend that they have detained
the child much less illegally.
(ii) The petitioner has given the child in adoption
to them and thereby they have become the adoptive
parents. On that count also their custody is lawful.
(iii) The petitioner instead of maintaining a petition
under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 for
custody of the child before the appropriate forum, has
adopted the mode of filing a petition for writ of Habeas
Corpus. Therefore the petition is not maintainable.
(iv) The petitioner is a single parent, financially she
is unstable. Respondent No.1 has a fabulous income. They
have attended all the needs of the child for the last five
years. Therefore the welfare of the child is better served
by keeping the child in their custody.
(v) Since the child has got Canadian Citizenship,
petitioner has to produce the child before the Canada
Government and apprehending coercive action against her
from the said Government, she has manipulated the
present petition rather than her interest in taking back the
custody of the child. All other allegations made by the
petitioner against them are denied.
8. We heard both the learned counsels
extensively. Ms. Jayasree Narasimhan, the learned counsel
for the petitioner reiterating the grounds made out in the
petition, in support of her contentions relied upon the
1. Gohar Begum v. Suggi alias Nazma Begum
AIR 1960 SC 93.
2. S.Rama Iyer v. K.V.Nataraja Iyer
AIR 1948 Mad 294.
3. Mumtaz Begum v. Mubarak Hussain
AIR 1986 Madhya Pradesh 221.
4. Bhagwati Bai v. Yadav Krishna Awadhiya and
AIR 1969 Madhya Pradesh 23.
9. Sri Dwarakanath, the learned counsel for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 reiterating the grounds made out
in the statement of objections and affidavit filed by
respondent No.1, in support of his contentions relied upon
the following Judgments:
1. Rajiv Bhatia v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others
(1999) 8 SCC 525
2. Prateek Gupta v. Shilpi Gupta and Ors.
3. Jitender Arora and Ors. v. Sukriti Arora and
4. Sarita Sharma V. Sushil Sharma
REG: MAINTAINABILITY AND VALIDITY OF
10. There is no dispute that baby Tanishka is born
out of the wedlock of the petitioner and her husband
Kamalkumar Venugopal Chenguttai on 04.06.2010 in
Ontario, Canada and she is a Canadian Citizen. Further it
is not disputed that the parties are Hindus and governed
by the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
11. Section 6(a) of the said Act reads as below:
6. Natural guardians of a Hindu minor.- The natural
guardian of a Hindu minor, in respect of the minor’s
person as well as in respect of the minor’s property
(excluding his or her undivided interest in joint family
(a) in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl- the
father, and after him, the mother: provided that
the custody of a minor who has not completed the
age of five years shall ordinarily be with the
12. The child is aged about 7 years. In a legal
battle between the petitioner and the father of the child
the Canadian Court vide order Annexure-F has dissolved
their marriage and appointed the petitioner as the sole
guardian of baby Tanishka. Therefore by virtue of Section
6(a) as well as by virtue of the Order Annexure-F, the
petitioner is the natural as well as the legal guardian of the
13. Annexure-G the Deed of Authorization dated
15.07.2011 and Annexure-H the power of attorney dated
30.01.2012 are not disputed by respondent Nos.1 and 2.
It is also not disputed that petitioner was desperately
fighting her legal battle with her husband in a foreign
Court and she had to manage her career, her personal life
and the child with medical issues. Therefore it is quite
natural that she has appointed her mother as guardian for
the child during her absence in India.
14. It is the contention of the petitioner that her
mother along with Tanishka lived in the house of
respondent Nos.1 and 2 on their request. Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 also do not dispute that Smt.Latha
Seshachalam lived with the child in their house till March
2016. That is evident from the admissions of respondent
No.1 in Annexure-R the letter dated 11.03.2016 submitted
by him to the PSI, HSR Police Station, Bengaluru.
Therefore the contention that the petitioner herself has
entrusted the child to the care and custody of respondent
Nos.1 and 2 and therefore their custody has continued to
be legal is unacceptable.
15. It is the contention of the petitioner that
respondent Nos.1 and 2 ill-treated Smt. Latha
Seshachalam and ultimately threw her out of their house
detaining the child for themselves. Therefore the
annexure-R supports the contention of the petitioner that
the child was under the care and custody of her mother
Latha Seshachalam till she was driven out of the house of
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
16. Annexure-A2 the SMS (short message service)
exchanged between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent
as well as Annexure-R3 the e-mail series dated
10.02.2013, 15.02.2013, 22.12.2015, 25.03.2016
between them clearly show that till March 2016 they
shared good relationship with each other. Those records
further show that though initially the petitioner thought of
giving the child in adoption because of her precarious
condition, later she started requesting the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 to return the child to her custody. There is
nothing to show that her statement that she is willing to
give the child in adoption translated into a completed act
of adoption. Therefore there is no merit in the contention
that the custody of Tanishka with respondent Nos.1 and 2
17. Respondents 1 and 2 have not even produced
any adoption deed. It is contended that adoption deed is
not required and customary adoption is enough. But they
do not even whisper any date, place and time of adoption.
Thus the alleged adoption is a disputed question of fact.
The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 contends
that whenever there is a dispute regarding custody the
person claiming the custody has to take recourse to the
proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act before the
Civil Court and the petition for writ of habeas corpus is not
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gohar Begum’s
case (AIR 1960 SC 93) referred to supra, dealing with
identical issue has held as follows:
“5. The learned Judges of the High Court observed that the
case raised various controversial questions, specially as to the
paternity of the child, as to whether the respondent had made
the appellant live in the keeping of different persons and also
as to whether she had prevented the appellant from having
access to the child. The learned Judges observed that it
was not the function of a court in an application under
S.491 to record findings on such controversial facts and
that, in these circumstances, the proper forum for the
appellant was to move a civil court under the Guardian
and Wards Act for the custody of the child. The learned
Judges further observed that they were prima facie satisfied
that the child was not illegally and improperly detained by the
respondents. They, therefore, dismissed the appellant’s
6. We are unable to appreciate the view of the learned
Judges of the High Court. It seems to us that the
controversial facts referred to by them were wholly
irrelevant to the decision of the application. We have not
been able to find one single fact relevant to the issue in this
case which is in controversy. The facts, which are abundantly
clear and beyond dispute are these. The child Anjum is the
illegitimate daughter of the appellant who is a Muslim woman.
The child was at the date of the application less than six years’
old and now she is just over seven years old. The appellant is a
singing girl by profession and so is the respondent. The
appellant stated in her affidavit that the respondent was in the
keeping of a man and this the respondent has not denied. It is
not the respondent’s case that she is a married woman leading
a respectable life. In fact she admits that she allowed Trivedi to
live in her flat with the appellant as his mistress and took
money from him for “Lodging and Boarding Charges”. Trivedi
has sworn an affidavit acknowledging the paternity of the child
and undertaking to bring her up properly as his own child. He is
a man of sufficient means and the appellants has been for a
considerable time living with him as his mistress.
7. On these undisputed facts the position in law is
perfectly clear. Under the Mohammedan law which
applies to this case, the appellant is entitled to the
custody of Anjum who is her illegitimate daughter, no
matter who the father of Anjum is. The respondent has
no legal right whatsoever to the custody of the child. Her
refusal to make over the child to the appellant, therefore,
resulted in an illegal detention of the child within the
meaning of S.491. This position is clearly recognized in the
English cases concerning writs of habeas corpus for the
production of infants. In R.v. Clarke, (1857) 7 El. And Bl. 186:
119 ER 1217 Lord Campbell C.J. said at p.193:
“But with respect to a child under guardianship for
nurture, the child is supposed to be unlawfully
imprisoned when unlawfully detained from the custody
of the guardian; and when delivered to him, the child is
supposed to be set at liberty”.
The courts in our country have consistently taken the same
view. For this purpose the Indian cases hereinafter cited may
be referred to. The terms of S.491 would clearly be applicable
to the case and the appellant entitled to the order she asked.
8. We therefore think that the learned Judges of the High
Court were clearly wrong in their view that the child Anjum was
not being illegally or improperly detained. The learned Judges
have not given any reason in support of their view and we are
clear in our mind that view is unsustainable in law.
9. Before making the order the court is certainly called upon to
consider the welfare of the infant concerned. Now there is no
reason to think that it is in the interest of the child Anjum to
keep her with the respondent. In this connection it is relevant
to state that at some stage of the proceedings in the High Court
the parties appeared to have arrived at a settlement whereby it
had been agreed that the child Anjum would be in the custody
of the appellant and the respondent would have access to the
child. The learned Judges of the High Court, however, were not
prepared to make an order in terms of this settlement because,
as they said, “It did not appear to be in the interest and welfare
of the minor”. Here again they give no reason for their view,
Both parties belong to the community of singing girls. The
atmosphere in the home of either is the same. The appellant as
the mother can be expected to take better care of the child
than the respondent. Trivedi has acknowledged the paternity of
the child. So in law the child can claim to be maintained by him.
She has no such right against the respondent. We have not
been able to find a single reason how the interests of the child
would be better served if she was left in the custody of the
respondent and not with the appellant.
10. We further see no reason why the appellant should
have been asked to proceed under the Guardian and
Wards Act for recovering the custody of the child. She
had of course the right to do so. But she had also a clear
right to an order for the custody of the child under S.491
of the Code. The fact that she had a right under the
Guardians and Wards Act is no justification for denying
her the right under S.491. That is well established as will
appear from the cases hereinafter cited.
13. It is further well established in England that in issuing a writ
of habeas corpus a corpus a court has power in the case of
infants to direct its custody to be placed with a certain person.
In R. v. Greenhill, (1836) 4 Ad and El 624 at p.640:111 ER 922
at p.927 Lord Denman C.J. said:
“When an infant is brought before the Court by habeas corpus,
if he be of an age to exercise a choice, the Court leaves him to
elect where he will go. If he be not of that age, and a want of
direction would only expose him to dangers or seductions, the
Court must make an order for his being placed in the proper
“Where, as frequently occurs in the case of infants, conflicting
claims for the custody of the same individual are raised, such
claims may be enquired into on the return to a writ of habeas
corpus, and the custody awarded to the proper person.”
Section 491 is expressly concerned with directions of the
nature of a habeas corpus. The English principles
applicable to the issue of a writ of habeas corpus,
therefore, apply here. In fact the courts in our country have
always exercised the power to direct under S.491 in a fit case
that the custody of an infant be delivered to the applicant: see
Rama Iyer v. Naatraja Iyer, AIR 1948 Mad 294, Zara Bibi v.
Abdul Razzak, 12 Bom LR 891 and Subbaswami Goundan v.
Kamakshi Ammal, ILR 53 Mad 72: (AIR 1929 Mad 834). If the
courts did not have this power, the remedy under S.491 would
in the case infants often become infructuous.
14. We, therefore, set aside the judgment and order of the High
Court and direct the respondent other than the State of
Bombay to make over the custody of the child Anjum to the
appellant. Let the child be produced by the respondents before
the Registrar, Appellate Side, High Court of Bombay, and the
Registrar will then make over custody to the appellant. The
passport in respect of the child Anjum deposited in this Court
by the respondents may be made over to the Advocate on
record for the appellant. The injunction restraining the removal
of the child Anjum outside Greater Bombay will continue till she
is delivered to the appellant.”
(Emphasis and Underline supplied)
19. Of course the said case arose out of a
proceeding under S.491 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1908. S.491 in Chapter – XXXVII Cr.P.C. 1908 dealt with
the powers of the High Court to issue direction in the
nature of habeas corpus and the same reads as follows:
DIRECTIONS OF THE NATURE OF A HABEAS CORPUS
Power to issue directions of the nature of a habeas corpus:
491.(1) Any High Court may, whenever it thinks fit, direct-
(a) that a person within the limits of its appellate criminal jurisdiction be
brought up before the Court to be dealt with according to law;
(b) that a person illegally or improperly detained in public or private
custody within such limits be set at liberty;
(c) that a prisoner detained in any jail situate within such limits be brought
before the Court to be there examined as a witness in any matter pending
or to be inquired into in such Court;
(d) that a prisoner detained as aforesaid be brought before a Court-martial
or any Commissioners for trial or to be examined touching any matter
pending before such Court-martial or Commissioners respectively;
(e) that a prisoner within such limits be removed from one custody to
another for the purpose of trial ; and
(f) that the body of a defendant within such limits be brought in on the
Sheriff’s return of cepi corpus to a writ of attachment.
(2) The High Court may, from time to time, frame rules to regulate the
procedure in cases under this section.
Thus under the said provision, the High Court was
vested with the powers to issue writ of habeas corpus on
par with Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That is
stated in the said judgment also. Therefore the said
Judgment is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
20. The Judgments in the cases namely, Rajiv
Bhatia, Prateek Gupta, Jitendra Arora and others,
Sarita Sharma referred to supra relied upon by the
learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 are rendered by a
smaller Bench than the Bench which delivered the
judgment in Gohar Begum’s case. Therefore the ratio laid
down in Gohar Begum’s case has to be followed.
21. On facts also in Rajiv Bhatia’s case the
respondent had set up a registered adoption deed and the
petitioner natural mother contended that the said adoption
deed is the outcome of fraud. Having regard to that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in that case held that in a petition
for habeas corpus the high court was not entitled to
examine the legality of the adoption deed and come to the
conclusion with regard to the custody of the child.
However, still the Apex Court confirmed the order of the
Delhi High Court on the ground that the child is not willing
to go to the adoptive parents and until the decision of the
competent forum is obtained with regard to the validity of
the adoption deed custody of the child shall be with the
22. In this case there is not even such document.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 without even mentioning the date
and place of alleged adoption, in the thin air claim
themselves to be adoptive parents. As against that in
Annexure-R, the letter of 1st respondent addressed to the
PSI, HSR Layout Police Station has stated as follows:
” I would like to withdraw my complaint. Since me
and my wife have mutually agreed to handover
Tanishka to her natural mother Manjumalini.
The Child’s schooling and treatment will be continued
in Canada by Manjumalini. And mother-in-law will also
be moving to Canada from my house.
Therefore, kindly withdraw my complaint as not
pressed and not taken any action against the complainant
by me on 08.03.2016.
We will take care of the child till her mother
move to Canada and we will accompany with the
child to the airport.”
Therefore the Judgment in Rajiv Bhatia’s case is
23. Similarly in Prateek Gupta’s case, Jitender
Arora’s case and Sarita Sharma’s case the contest was
between the natural guardians covered under Section 6 of
the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. Except for the
alleged fragile and baseless claim of the adoption,
respondents 1 and 2 do not have any legal right to the
custody of minor Tanishka. Therefore if at all they want to
seek the custody of the child, it is for them to approach
the Civil Court as contended by them and the petitioner
cannot be driven to the Civil Court for that purpose.
Therefore the Judgments relied upon by the counsel for
respondents 1 and 2 are not applicable. As against that,
the Judgment of the Larger Bench in Gohar’s case referred
to supra is squarely applicable and has to be followed.
24. The moment respondents 1 and 2 refused to
handover the custody of minor Tanishka to the petitioner
the natural and legal guardian, the continuation of her
custody with them becomes illegal detention. Such
intentional act on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2 even
amounts to the offence of kidnapping punishable under
S.361 of IPC. Therefore there is no merit in the contention
that the writ petition is not maintainable and respondent
Nos.1 and 2 are in legal custody of baby Tanishka.
Reg. Welfare of the Child:
25. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2
contends that respondent No.1 is earning annual income of
Rs.26,00,000/-, the petitioner with her broken family and
humble source cannot maintain the child to the standards
himself and his wife are maintaining. It is further
contended that child has become accustomed to Indian
style of living due to its stay in India for past several
years, therefore if the child is shifted now to foreign
country to the custody of the petitioner, the welfare of the
26. The petitioner contends she is employed in
Canada, has arranged for the schooling and health care of
the child in Canada and she has also got the PR status for
her mother Smt.Latha Seshachalam and therefore both of
them can take good care of the child. She further
contends that the 1st respondent is admittedly suffering
from schizophrenia and he has a very distorted, distasteful
ideas which he has posted on the social media and
therefore there is imminent threat to the safety of the
minor child and continuation of the custody of the child
with them is totally against the welfare of the child.
27. Though the child is in a tender age, to
ascertain the choice of the child and her rapport with the
rival parties we interacted with the child and the parties for
about 50 minutes in the chambers. During such interaction
even tried to reconcile the parties which did not
materialize. Our interaction with the child revealed that
she has love and affection for her mother and grand-
mother and she loves to live with them.
28. Further respondent No.1 himself, in his
affidavit filed before this Court, admits that he is suffering
from mental health issues and the postings made by him
on the social media like twitter, Qora etc. To find out
whether the welfare of the child will be promoted in the
company of respondents 1 and 2 it is inevitable to refer to
some of those postings made by respondent No.1 which
are as follows:
REG. MENTAL HEALTH OF RESPONDENT NO.1:
Of Palliatives and Indian stigma
I have symptoms of depression and mild traits of
schizophrenia. From 2013, I am under medication. I have regular
meetings with my psychiatrist every three months. Usually, he alters
dosage of the tablets a little bit from time to time.
Initially, I did not open up about meeting a psychiatrist
to anyone. I kept it to myself. But over time, I realized this is a
life-long medication. The medicines fixes the symptoms and do not
fix the actual problem. So, these medicines are called palliatives.
If I don’t take the medicines, I have problem sleeping at night.
I am awake throughout the night. I am a bit hyperactive at night. I
remember there was a time when I had not slept for seven days. (And
my best was not sleeping for 21 days).
If I don’t take the medicines, I also hear voices. The voices
prompt me to talk back to the voice. And when I talk to the voice, I
am lost. I don’t know much about the conversation I have with the
voice. It may not be sensible. But I do have. My wife has noticed that I
sometimes smile for no reason. And I am lost in thoughts. The doc
says that these are traits of schizophrenia. The medicines ensure
that I don’t hear any voices or get dragged into a conversation with it.
REG. HIS HABITS AND ATTITUDE:
“Some learnings on men’s health:
Alcohol: Alcohol in small quantities helps to socialize and make us feel
good. But in large quantities it affects men’s health.”
Porn and masturbation:
Excessive of these things are also detrimental. It wires up your
brain wrongly. So, when you actually do stuff, you are in a bad shape
because you are wired so wrongly.
At different parts of my life, I did some of it excessively.
I don’t believe in moderation. But the above things should be done
in moderation and preferably on the lower side.”
1. ABOUT MOTHER:
“My mother (Shankari) is very possessive. She controls me via
She wants me to have a voice conversation with me using Black Magic
– no phone call but like a voice booming in my head to which I have to
reply to. Such a freak hobby she has. She is a health hazard to me.
Mothers are not holy. Infact, if you are a son, there is a good
chance that your mother plays the role of an evil witch always trying
to control you. In my case, that is true. She keeps a suspicious eye on
me. Keep a safe distance from your mom. And avoid her if she get
My mother is possessive. She controls me via BlackMagic.
Controlling me via Magic is her hobby. I am taking pills from
psychiatrist to ensure that the control from my mother is less. But this
is a new area. And even my psychiatrist does not believe she can
control my mind remotely.
When I was growing up, my mother used Magic to
manipulate my willingness to learn. It helped me to score good
marks in school. Naturally, it appears that I am systematic but too lazy
to learn. With my casual attitude towards anything, I am not expected
to top score in schools. But I did. And I believe my mother used Magic
to good degree to get me serious about studies.
During my growing up years, upto the age of 21, the Magic was
only mild. But my mother had some silly ideas. Most likely, by doing
Magic on my father. According to my mother, men should get prone
to more and more Magic as they age. So, she stepped up her Magic
after I graduated. After I graduated, I moved back home. And now, I
had more Magic.
I also moved to Bangalore for work. When the distance became
more, my mother asked one of my relative, another lady to keep a
watch on me. I assume that is a request to do Magic on me. In any
case, my mother knew that distance is not a deterrent to doing Magic.
She can continue to do Magic from Chennai when I was in Bangalore.
And Magic works over long distances.
To be honest, the whole conversation with the psychiatrist was
planted by my mother. The real symptom was that I was not happy.
Because of Magic, I was not attentive and I had attention deficit.
And there were several other problems. And because I was not
conscious enough, I did not explain these things to the psychiatrist.
Consultations with psychiatrist will work only if you are conscious
My wife was patient. She helped me understand that my
mother and my sister were tampering with my brain. Previously, I was
not even aware that my brain was being tampered severly.
After that, for the next 10 days, I got some training on Magic.
Probably, this is how they teach Magic to victims in India.
At the age of 40, I started believing that I can work towards
freeing myself from my mother’s Magic. The first steps that I did
was to stop communicating with her. I felt guilty initially.
But as I start thinking back and look at the amount of harm
done, I feel that it is the right decision to shut her off from my life.
2. ABOUT PARENTS:
“Realized in my mid – 30s that parents don’t mean well for
kids. They are just humans. Don’t understand why we have to
blindly respect parents.”
3. ABOUT MOTHER LAND:
“My kid’s Canadian passport needs to be renewed after which I
will move out of India. Just a few more months.
I feel comfortable working with foreigners and non –
Indians. Prefer to move to US or Europe.
Moving to developed country:-
Lack of options and entertainment is prevalent in India. So, I
should have moved out of India to U.S. or Europe when I was younger
so that I had more options in life. Most of my peers did just that and
they have a far better life than me.”
4. ABOUT MOTHER-IN-LAW:
“Latha, my mother -in-law is capable of influencing my brain
from far away. She is in Canada Scientists should study her brain.”
5. ABOUT SISTER-IN-LAW:
“My sister -in-law Manju Malini is a liar and a third-rate
crook. No wonder she is divorced and did not find any one. She
is a gold – digger.
It look my sister-in-law Manju Malini has complained to the
Canadian embassy, most likely about me. She is a big liar and a
Why should Child welfare of India help a Canadian get back
custody of her child who has been raised on India for 7yrs?
I wish I had a relation with #Kamalkumar Venugopal. This
female, Manju Malini is a cheap third rate crook only he can
The biggest fools on earth is Venugopal and Hema for letting
their son KamalKumar to live with this female – Manju Malini who is a
Excessive of these things are also detrimental. It wires up your
brain wrongly. So, when you actually do stuff, you are in a bad shape
because you are wired so wrongly.”
6. ABOUT WIFE:
“I got married when I was 32. Needless to say, I had more
problems. Relationship problems, yes. But more than that, severe
7. ABOUT WOMAN:
“That was a lot of non-sense. But, I felt like a victim in the
middle of a terrorist camp. I felt a hatred for all women.”
8. ABOUT HIS RELATIONSHIPS AND SELF-CONTROL:
“Towards the end of 26, I got close to a girl and I kept calling
her girl friend. But she kept insisting that she was just a friend. So, it
was nothing serious at all. It lasted for a month. But that is when big
trouble started to me.
I started hearing voices in my head. And the voices kept telling
me that it was ok to hear voices in my head. And I should also
This caused problems at work. And at work in Infosys, they
advised me to consult a psychologist. The psychologist told me that
hearing voices is not normal. And I need psychiatric attention.
Between 33 and 40, my life was mostly silent. I decided to
focus on my work and less on Magic. I took medicines from
psychiatrist and did not think about happiness or entertainment. I just
kept doing work and more work.
I soon understood the symptoms that psychiatrist were looking
for. Voices are a problem. When I hear voices, I am not in control of
my self. My wife told me that I smile without reason. And that is when
I hear voices. So, hearing voices is a problem. And it is a big
9. LEGAL SYSTEM:
“Whether you like it or not, we the citizen who pay taxes are
supporting the police and judicial system. So, the government should
take steps to prevent harassment from these institutions. Police and
judicial machinery in Indian is very insensitive.”
Shame on Indian police and judicial system to harass
honest and tax paying citizens based on lies told by a Canadian
citizen a lady and who lives on government support. Protect
your citizen like how the US is protecting Nirav Modi.
29. The above postings show that the first
respondent has the contemptuous feelings against his own
mother, motherland, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and
against female. The postings further show that he has
indulged in alcohol, pornography and un-healthy sexual
acts. The said postings are disgraceful, contemptuous,
highly distasteful and distorted. Those postings reflect the
mindset of the first respondent. The thoughts of an
individual translate into his actions. The quality of the
action of a person depends upon quality of his thoughts. A
person who has no respect and concern for his mother,
motherland, parents, women and the people around him
cannot extend the same to any other woman or human
being nor as a parent can he cultivate those values in his
30. In the light the above said enormous terrific
material it is very difficult to accept that the welfare of
baby Tanishka is better served in the company of
respondent No.1 and 2. Admittedly respondent No.2 is
working lady. In her absence from home for her work, the
child has to stay in the company of respondent No.1
alone. Having regard to the admissions of respondent
No.1 himself that he has no control over himself and his
thought process, it is even difficult to imagine about the
well-being of the child in his company.
31. In spite of such voluminous staring material,
incompatible with the claim of respondents 1 and 2 about
the well-being of the child in their company, the learned
counsel for the respondents 1 2 astoundingly contended
that the affluent financial condition of respondent No.1
shall be given credence to continue the custody of a child
with respondents 1 2 as against the claim of the mother.
Motherhood/parenthood requires totally different qualities
and outlook than a high range ATM card. High range ATM
cards are not the substitute for a natural mother. That is
why our scriptures have declared “Janani Janma
Bhoomischa Swargadapi Gariyasi” meaning thereby that
mother and motherland are greater than the luxuries of
even the heaven.
32. An attempt was made to contend that despite
the mental health issue of respondent No.1, the petitioner
had left the child with respondents 1 2 and so far
nothing has happened, as against that they have taken
good care of child. Respondent No.1 in his postings
himself has claimed that he did not disclose his mental
health issue to others. Even in these proceedings, till the
petitioner produced those postings of respondent No.1, the
said fact was not revealed before the Court. There is
nothing to show that respondents 1 2 had revealed
about the same to the petitioner earlier to this petition.
Apart from that the mother of the petitioner was with the
child till March 2016.
33. At the fag end of the proceedings respondent
No.1 produced a medical certificate purportedly issued by
his psychiatric consultant certifying that his aliment is
under control and his condition is not hindrance to be a
parent. Petitioner’s counsel contends that the said
document is got up to serve the purpose of this case.
34. The authenticity of the said certificate itself is
questioned. Much is desired to be said, the way and the
stage at which the same is produced. The respondents do
not make any allegations of any physical, moral or legal
disability of the petitioner to bring up her child. When she
is alive and prepared for taking care of her child, there is
no compelling circumstance to continue the child in the
custody of respondents 1 2 on the basis of alleged
certificate about the parenting ability of respondent No.1.
35. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and
circumstances and the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Gohar Begum’s case and having regard to the
option of the child, we are of the considered view that the
welfare of the child is better served in the custody of the
REG REMOVAL OF THE CHILD
36. The next contention of the counsel for the
contesting respondents is that if the petition is allowed, the
petitioner removes child to Canada and then it becomes
impossible to retrieve the child even if they pursue any
litigation in the matter.
37. As already pointed out first of all, the
contesting respondents have to establish their legal right
over the child by approaching the Civil Court. Secondly,
admittedly the child and the petitioner are Canadian
citizens, therefore there is nothing illegal in the petitioner
removing the child to Canada. The contesting respondents
did not feel the pinch of hardship faced by the petitioner in
driving her to fight this litigation all the way coming from
Canada. But when it comes to them to fight a litigation
against the petitioner to claim their right, they set up this
hardship theory. When the detention of the child is illegal
such of their apprehension in no way advances their
38. The records produced by the petitioner show
that at least since May 2017 she is incessantly requesting
respondents 3 to 6 to help her to restore the custody of
her child and they have showed a cold response. Much is
desired to be said about the quality of their service to a
lone helpless woman. We expect them to act promptly in
accordance with law, at least in implementing the order
We are going to pass.
With the above observations, the petition is allowed.
Respondents 1 2 are hereby directed to handover
the child baby Tanishka to the petitioner forthwith.
Respondents 3 to 5 shall facilitate the restoration of
custody of baby Tanishka to the petitioner forthwith along
with her medical records and other documents and