SANDYA GONI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unfortunate case where a young girl aged about 13 years is torn between her two parents. The admitted facts are that since the year 2010 after the separation of the two parents, being the petitioner (mother) and respondent 5 (father), the child Ms Shreya remained in the custody of her mother. After separation, the petitioner and respondent 5 reside separately but opposite each other's houses in different apartments. It is not disputed that during this period, while the daughter Ms Shreya stayed with her mother, she used to visit her father.

(2.) It was on 8.5.2015 that respondent 5 (father of the girl) sent an SMS (message on the mobile phone) to the petitioner (mother of the girl) to the effect that since their daughter had attained puberty and there was a function to be held for it on 10.5.2015, he would like the daughter to visit him so that he could give a gift to his daughter. On such plea, on 8.5.2015 the mother permitted the child to go to the father and in such circumstance, father got the custody of the child which was for giving a gift at a function to be held on 10.5.2015. The averments in this regard have been made in paragraph 6 of the petition, which the learned counsel for respondent 5 has admitted to be correct. Though an objection has been filed today but no reply has been given to the averments made in the petition. The contents of paragraph 6 of the petition have not been denied. Further, along with the objections filed today, annexure B is a communication dated 8.5.2015 made by respondent 5 to the Station House Officer, Sanjaynagar Police Station, Bangalore, informing the police that his daughter Ms Shreya was in his custody, and that he was taking her out on vacation for about a month for summer holidays. After taking custody of the child from the mother on 8.5.2015, which was on the pretext of giving a gift at a function to be held on 10.5.2015, it is noteworthy that on that very date the respondent 5 (father) made such a communication to the police to the effect that he was taking his daughter out on vacation for a month. This clearly shows that the custody of the child was taken by the father from the mother on misrepresentation. It clearly appears that the intention was not to give a gift to the daughter/child at a function to be held on 10.5.2015 but to take her out on a vacation for a month, as no such function is said to have taken place on the 10th on which date the father had said that he was to give a gift to his daughter.

(3.) This Court is conscious of the fact that there is nothing wrong in the father wanting to have custody of the daughter and take her out on vacation but, the manner in which custody was taken from the mother, which was deceitfully done by giving a wrong information, is what is objectionable.