M. VANDHANA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A fight for custody of a three year old child, Abhimanyu Gowtham is the subject matter of this writ petition for Habeas Corpus.

(2.) The petitioner is the wife of 9th respondent, who was added to this writ petition at a later stage. The marriage between the petitioner and the 9th respondent was held on 31/8/2017; it didn't take long years for their relationship to deteriorate, the reasons for which need not be elaborated here. As usual there is mutual mudslinging. The crux of the matter, as stated in the memorandum of writ petition, is that in the year 2022, the petitioner secured a job in Bengaluru and when she informed her decision to relocate to Bengaluru, her parents'-in-law, respondents 4 and 5 opposed her move and ultimately they agreed reluctantly with a condition that the child should be sent to their place every weekend. Because of soured relationship between the petitioner and her husband, she decided to seek divorce from her husband, which was also opposed by her parents'-in-law. They insisted on the petitioner to relinquish the custody of the child to them before proceeding to initiate action for divorce. With this prelude, the actual allegation is that, at 7.54 p.m. on 11/12/2023, respondents 4 to 7 accompanied by men and hooligans gained forcible entry into the petitioner's apartment, cast aspersions affecting her dignity and modesty, snatched the minor child from her and, took him with them. The petitioner has stated to have approached the police immediately and she has produced copies of complaint and other correspondences by her with police higher ups, but these developments prompted to invoke the habeas corpus jurisdiction.

(3.) The fourth respondent has denied all the allegations made by the petitioner and stated that the petitioner totally neglected the child and, used to beat and ill-treat the child finding him disturbance to her vagabond life. The petitioner's maid servant being annoyed so much seeing the petitioner's life style and illegal attitudes, and harassment on the child informed the petitioner's elder brother about all this. The petitioner's brother thereafter called respondents 4 and 5 and asked them to take the child with them. Respondent no.4 has stated that the petitioner's elder brother himself gave the child to him and his wife, and now the child is in the custody of his father ie., 9th respondent. It is also stated that two proceedings, one for divorce and another for child custody are pending in the Family Court at Dharmapuri.