SANJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Sanju, who claims to be the friend of Ms.Chinmayi, the detenue filed the present writ petition habeas corpus, praying to direct the respondent No.2-police to produce petitioner's partner Chinmayi, daughter of Manjunath, resident of YNH Hoball Sarvatapura, Budibatta, Tumakuru before this Court. It is the case of the petitioner that he is aged 23 years, a transgender, self identified as male and prefers the name Sanju. The daughter of respondent Nos.3 and 4, i.e., Ms.Chinmayi, aged 18 years has been in consensual relationship with the petitioner, since 2019. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 did not approve Chinmayi's relationship with the petitioner since beginning and have resorted her to physical and emotional abuse for being in relationship with the petitioner. Ms Chinamayi being unable to withstand the abuse inflicted on her, decided to leave her parents' house and came to petitioner's house to stay with him on 9/5/2022. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 were well aware of Ms.Chinmayi's desire to live with the petitioner. The next day, 2nd respondent police called the petitioner and informed that Chinmayi's parents had filed a kidnapping case against petitioner and therefore, asked the petitioner to bring Chinmayi to Police Station. When the petitioner and Chinmayi went to police station, the family members of Chinmayi, forcefully separated her from petitioner and took away Chinmayi. It is further case of the petitioner that he is unaware of Chinmayi's whereabouts, her safety and well being. The illegal and unlawful separation and confinement of Chinmayi is without the authority of law and is in blatant violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, petitioner filed the present writ petition.

(2.) The respondent No.2-jurisdictional police produced Chinmayi, aged 18 years, along with her parents. When query was made by this Court, Chinmayi stated that petitioner is only her friend and she is not willing to go with petitioner and denied the allegation made in the writ petition that she is in consensual relationship with the petitioner since 2019 and further stated that she is willing to stay with her parents. The statement made by Chinmayi in the presence of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate and respondent Nos.3 and 4(parents of Chinmayi) is placed on record.

(3.) In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with costs.