1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2023

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

W.P.H.C. NO.30 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

DR. RAJEEV GIRI

S/O DR. JAYDEV GIRI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT D 006
CASA ANSAL APARTMENT
NEXT TO GOPALAN MALL
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
J P NAGAR, BENGALURU 560078.
... PETITIONER
(BY MR. S. SREEVATSA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. N. GOWTHAM RAGHUNATH, ADV.,)

AND:

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
BY ITS SECRETARY
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU 560001.

2 . THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER

HAL POLICE STATION
HAL OLD AIRPORT ROAD
SECTOR 3, MARATHAHALLI
BENGALURU 560037.
 2

3 . DR. EKTA SINGH

W/O DR. RAJEEV GIRI
D/O D V SINGH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT 1S NO 20
PSS PINNACLE, BHOMI REDDY
COLONY, NO 21/2, THIPPSANDRA
ROAD, HAL 3RD STAGE
BENGALURU 560075.

ALSO AT
COLUMBIA ASIA HOSPITALS PVT LTD
THE ICON, 2ND & 3RD FLOOR
#8, 80 FEET ROAD, HAL III STAGE
INDIRANGARA, BENGALURU-75.

PRESENTLY WORKING AT
MANIPAL HOSPITALS PVT. LTD.
THE ANNEXE, NO.24
HAL OLD AIRPORT ROAD
RUSTAM BAGH LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560017.

4. DHARAM VEER SINGH

A.K.A. D.V. SINGH
S/O OM PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.

5. SUNITHA SINGH
W/O D.V. SINGH
AGED MAJOR.

BOTH R/AT. NO.551

SECTOR 12, PANCHAKULA
HARYANA-134112.

... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. V.S. HEGDE, SPP-II FOR R1 & R2
MR. M.T. NANAIAH, SR. COUNSEL FOR
MR. M.C. KUMARASWAMY, ADV., FOR R3 )
---
 3

THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS BY DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT
POLICE TO TRACE AND PRODUCE THE PETITIONERS MINOR
DAUGHTER, MAYRA GIRI AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS BEFORE
THIS HONBLE COURT.

THIS W.P.H.C. HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR ORDERS ON 06.06.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY,
ALOK ARADHE J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus

has been filed by the petitioner, in which following

reliefs are sought:

(a) Issue a writ of Habeas Corpus by

directing the 2nd respondent police to trace
and produce the petitioner's minor
daughter, Mayra Giri aged about 8 years
before this Hon'ble Court; and

(b) Pass such other order/s as this

Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper,
necessary and expedient in the
circumstances of the case.
 4

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this petition

briefly stated are that the petitioner and respondent

No.3 (hereinafter referred to as 'the wife' for short) got

married on 23.10.2011. Out of the wedlock, a

daughter viz., Miss Mayra Giri (hereinafter referred to

as 'the daughter' for short) was born to them. The

petitioner who is the father of the daughter filed a

petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards

Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for

short), which was allowed by the Family Court vide

judgment and decree dated 03.03.2022. The operative

portion of the judgment reads as under:

"Petition filed by the petitioner under

Section 25 of Guardian and Wards Act is
allowed.

Respondent / mother is directed to

handover the custody of the minor child
Mayra Giri aged about 7 years to the
custody of the petitioner within one month
from the date of this order.
 5

Further the respondent is permanent

restrained by an order of injunction from
removing the child from the jurisdiction of
this court till the child is handed over to the
custody of petitioner.

No order as to costs."

3. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid order

passed by the family court was challenged by the wife

in an appeal under Section 47(c) of the Act viz.,

M.F.A.No.2786/22. The aforesaid appeal was decided

vide judgment dated 31.01.2023 and the judgment of

the family court has been upheld. The operative

portion of the aforesaid judgment passed in the M.F.A.

reads as under:

68. The appeal is dismissed. We feel

that the interest of the minor child will be
best served if the custody of the child is
handed over tot eh respondent but with
sufficient access to the appellant to visit the
minor at frequent intervals, and therefore,
 6

while confirming the judgment and decree

dated 03.03.2022 passed by the Family
Court in G & WC No.128/2018 filed by the
respondent under Section 25 of the Act,
and directing appellant to grant custody of
the minor child to the respondent, we are
inclined to grant visitation rights to the
appellant though she has not prayed for
the same, on the following terms:

(i) The appellant is

directed to hand over the minor
child to the custody of the
respondent after completion of
the child's annual final
examinations for the present
academic year i.e., 2022-23.

(ii) The respondent

shall make arrangements for
the child to continue her
studies in her present school
and shall shift his residence to
a place which is within the
 7

radius of 5 Kms. From the

child's school.

(iii) The respondent

shall provide the school
calendar of the child with list of
holidays along with dates of
examination to the appellant.

(iv) The respondent shall

meet all the expenses of the
minor child towards her
education, health, care, food
and clothing and in the event
the appellant also wishes to
contribute towards the
upbringing of the child, the
respondent shall not create
any obstruction to and / or
prevent the appellant from also
making such contribution.

(v) The appellant will be

at liberty to visit the minor
child either in the respondent's
 8

house or in the premises of a

mutual friend or any other
place as may be agreed upon
on every Sunday. To enable the
appellant to meet the child, the
respondent shall ensure the
child's presence either in his
house or in the house of the
mutual friend or in a public
place agreed upon at 10.00
a.m. The appellant will be
entitled to take the child out
with her for the day, and to
bring her back to the
respondent's house or the
premises of the mutual friend
within 7.00 p.m. in the evening.

(vi) On all important

festival days for which holiday
is declared to the School, the
appellant shall be entitled to
take custody of the child
between 10.00 a.m. and 1.00
p.m.
 9

(vii) The appellant, upon

prior intimation to the
respondent, will also be
entitled to meet the minor at
her school once a week after
school hours for about an hour.

(viii) The appellant will

also be entitled to the custody
of the minor for 10 consecutive
days during the summer
vacation on dates to be
mutually settled between the
parties.

(ix) During long holidays /

vacations covering more than
ten days, the child will be
allowed to be in the company
of the mother for half of the
said long holidays / vacations.

(x) The mother is

entitled to communicate with
the child through phone / video
 10

call / skype etc. between 7.00

p.m. to 8.00 p.m. everyday.

(xi) The aforesaid

arrangement will continue for
the present, but the parties will
be at liberty to approach the
Family Court, Bengaluru, for
fresh directions should the
same become necessary on
account of changed
circumstances.

4. It is also not in dispute that against the

aforesaid judgment and decree passed by a division

bench of this court, the wife filed a Special Leave

petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP

No.4869/2023. However, another

S.L.P.No.19469/2023 was filed on behalf of the

daughter. The Special Leave Petition viz., SLP

No.4869/2023 filed on by the wife was dismissed vide

 11

order dated 29.03.2003. The relevant extract of the

order reads as under:

5. We have gone through the

impugned order of the High Court and see
no infirmity in the findings. The High Court
has upheld the order which was passed by
the trial Judge.

5. It is also not in dispute that the Special

Leave Petition filed separately by the daughter against

the judgment dated 31.01.2023 passed by a division

bench of this court was also dismissed by an order

dated 16.05.2023.

6. In other words, the order appointing the

husband as guardian of the minor daughter and a

direction to the wife to hand over the custody to the

husband has attained finality.

7. However, despite the fact that the order of

the family court directing handing over of the custody

 12

had attained finality, the custody of the daughter has

not been handed over to the petitioner. Thereupon,

the petitioner filed this writ petition on or about

11.04.2023 seeking the reliefs as stated supra in this

writ petition. A Division Bench of this court passed an

interim order directing issuance of Non Bailable

Warrant to secure the presence of wife. The said

order was challenged by the wife in SLP

No.19469/2023. The aforesaid Special Leave Petition

has been dismissed on 16.05.2023. In the light of the

directions contained in the order dated 16.05.2023

passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the wife appeared

before this court along with the daughter.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the judgment and decree dated

03.03.2022 passed by the family court attained

finality as the aforesaid judgment and decree has

been upheld in an appeal not only by a division bench

 13

of this court but by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well. It

is submitted that despite dismissal of the Special

Leave Petition, the custody of the child has not been

handed over to the petitioner who is legally entitled to

the custody of the daughter. It is further submitted

that the child is in illegal custody of the wife as the

wife is retaining the custody of the child in

contravention of the judgments of the courts. It is

further submitted that in the fact situation of the

case, a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable. In

support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been on

decision in 'TEJASWINI GAUD AND OTHRES VS.

SHEKHAR JAGDISH PRASAD TIWARI AND

OTHERS', (2019) 7 SCC 42, 'YASHITA SAHU VS.

STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS', (2020) 3

SCC 67 and 'RAJESHWARI CHANDRASEKAR

GANESH VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND

OTHERS', 2022 SCC ONLINE SC 885.

 14

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

wife at the outset fairly submitted that the parties are

bound to comply with the orders of the courts. It is

however, pointed out that against the judgment dated

29.03.2023 passed in SLP No.4869/2023, a review

petition has been filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court.

It is further submitted that the daughter is not in

illegal custody. It is contended that the wife had left

the petitioner when the daughter was 3 years of age

and now after a period of 5 years, the petitioner is

claiming the custody of the daughter. It is urged that

the proceedings have been initiated with a view to

harass the wife and her father. It is also pointed out

that the amount of maintenance is not paid to the wife

and for execution of the judgment passed by the

family court, the execution proceedings have been

initiated. Therefore, no interference is called for in this

proceeding.
 15

10. We have considered the rival submission

made on both sides and have perused the record. At

the outset, we may deal with the issue pertaining to

maintainability of the writ petition. In TEJASWINI

GAUD AND OTHERS supra, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held as under:

19. Habeas corpus proceedings is not

to justify or examine the legality of the
custody. Habeas corpus proceedings is a
medium through which the custody of the
child is addressed to the discretion of the
court. Habeas corpus is a prerogative writ
which is an extraordinary remedy and the
writ is issued where in the circumstances
of the particular case, ordinary remedy
provided by the law is either not available
or is ineffective; otherwise a writ will not be
issued. In child custody matters, the power
of the High Court in granting the writ is
qualified only in cases where the detention
of a minor by a person who is not entitled
 16

to his legal custody. In view of the

pronouncement on the issue in question by
the Supreme Court and the High Courts, in
our view, in child custody matters, the writ
of habeas corpus is maintainable where it
is proved that the detention of a minor child
by a parent or others was illegal and
without any authority of law.

11. In YASHITA SAHU supra, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held as under:

10. It is too late in the day to urge

that a writ of habeas corpus is not
maintainable if the child is in the custody
of another parent. The law in this regard
has developed a lot over a period of time
but now it is a settled position that the
court can invoke its extraordinary writ
jurisdiction for the best interest of the child.
This has been done in Elizabeth Dinshaw
vs. Arvand M. Dinshaw & Ors.1, Nithya
Anand Raghavan vs. State (NCT of Delhi) &
Anr. 2 and Lahari Sakhamuri vs. Sobhan
Kodali3 among others. In all these cases
 17

the writ petitions were entertained.

Therefore, we reject the contention of the
appellant wife that the writ petition before
the High Court of Rajasthan was not
maintainable.

12. In RAJESWARI CHANDRASEKAR

GANESH supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held

as under:

91. Thus, it is well established that in

issuing the writ of Habeas Corpus in the
case of minors, the jurisdiction which the
Court exercises is an inherent jurisdiction
as distinct from a statutory jurisdiction
conferred by any particular provision in
any special statute. In other words, the
employment of the writ of Habeas Corpus
in child custody cases is not pursuant to,
but independent of any statute. The
jurisdiction exercised by the court rests in
such cases on its inherent equitable powers
and exerts the force of the State, as parens
patriae, for the protection of its minor ward,
and the very nature and scope of the
 18

inquiry and the result sought to be

accomplished call for the exercise of the
jurisdiction of a court of equity. The primary
object of a Habeas Corpus petition, as
applied to minor children, is to determine in
whose custody the best interests of the
child will probably be advanced. In a
Habeas Corpus proceeding brought by one
parent against the other for the custody of
their child, the court has before it the
question of the rights of the parties as
between themselves, and also has before
it, if presented by the pleadings and the
evidence, the question of the interest which
the State, as parens patriae, has in
promoting the best interests of the child.

13. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law

by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is evident that in child

custody matters, when the child is in custody of one

of the parents, a writ of habeas corpus is

maintainable. Therefore, the contention urged on

behalf of the wife that the writ of habeas corpus is not

 19

maintainable does not deserve acceptance.

Accordingly, it is repelled.

14. A division bench of this court vide judgment

dated 31.01.2023 passed in M.F.A.No.2786/2022

while upholding the judgment dated 03.03.2022

passed by the family court, by which petitioner was

appointed as guardian, has directed the wife to hand

over the custody of the minor after completion of

annual final examination for academic year 2022-23.

The final examination of the daughter as per version

of the wife, has concluded on 13.03.2023. However,

notwithstanding the fact that judgment of this court

has upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order

dated 29.03.2023 passed in SLP No.4869/2023, the

wife is continuing with the custody of the daughter,

which is not permissible on account of judgment

dated 31.01.2023 passed in MFA No.2786/2022,

which has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court

 20

vide order dated 29.03.2023 passed in SLP

No.4869/2023.

15. It is pertinent to note that on 19.04.2023, a

division bench in this writ petition had directed

issuance of Non Bailable Warrant, which was

challenged in SLP No.19469/2023. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court by an order dated 16.05.2023,

recorded undertaking furnished on behalf of the wife

that she will remain present before this court along

with the daughter. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court

directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against

the wife. Thereafter, another division bench of this

court by an order dated 27.04.2023 inter alia held

that the wife is trying to evade the process of the court

and she does not intend to appear until coercive steps

are taken. It was further held that her action amounts

to abuse of judicial process.

 21

16. Thereafter, by an order dated 09.05.2023, a

bench of this court inter alia held that wife has not

handed over the custody of the minor child to the

petitioner and is also avoiding service of Non Bailable

Warrant. It was further held that despite best effort

made by the police authorities including the police

authorities at Delhi, the wife is not traceable. A bench

of this court therefore, issued several directions to

secure the presence of the minor child. The court also

directed initiation of civil and criminal contempt

proceeding against the wife. The aforesaid conduct of

the wife amounts to abuse of process of law and

cannot be countenanced.

17. In the circumstances aforesaid, the wife

cannot be permitted to continue with the custody of

the daughter as the same is in contravention of

judgments of the court, which have attained finality

 22

and is binding on the parties. We therefore, issue

following directions:

(i) The Commissioner of Police,

Bangalore shall ensure that concerned
Station House Officer hands over the
custody of the daughter to the
petitioner within 24 hours from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(ii) The police is also directed to

contact employer of the wife viz.,
Manipal Health Enterprise Pvt. Ltd.
Annexe, Old Airport Road, Bengaluru to
hold back all the benefits payable to
her till custody of the daughter is
handed over.

(iii) The directions contained

in the order dated 09.05.2023 relating
to initiation of suo motu criminal and
civil contempt proceeding shall also be
given effect to.
 23

With the aforesaid directions, the petition is

disposed of.

Sd/-
JUDGE

Sd/-
JUDGE

SS