Dismissed

Smt. Mary Fernandez v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2022WPHC/54/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by the mother of an adult daughter seeking her production. The court held that the daughter, who resides separately with her grandmother, categorically refused to move with her mother and remained a major with completed education.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed under Article 226 for habeas corpus was dismissed with a warning to the petitioner.

Smt. Mary Fernandez Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION (HC) NO. 54/2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. MARY FERNANDEZ W/O VILAS RAJAN AGED 52 YEARS R/AT NO.29/30, 5^TH MAIN, NEAR AMRUTHA ENGINEERING COLLEGE AMRUTHA NAGAR, CARMELARAM BANGALORE - 560 035

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT.SOFIYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.KAMALUDDIN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHAN SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE CITY BANGALORE - 560 001

¶15

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER BELLANDUR POLICE STATION WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE - 560 066

¶16

¶17

SMT. TERESA SPYCHER D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGED MAJOR R/AT ABHIKSHAMA, NO.132, 1ST FLOOR OPP. KRUPA P G, DURGAMBA LAYOUT KATTIGENAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 064

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.V.S.HEGDE, SPP-II A/W SRI.THEJESH.P, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SMT.SAHANA BASAVAPATNA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶20

THIS WP(HC) IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE PETITIONER, WHEREIN SHE PRAYS TO A) ISSUE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO SECURE THE PRESENCE/BODY OF THE DETAINEE KUM.VICTORIA MARY FERNANDEZ, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS AND PRODUCE BEFORE THIS HONBLE COURT AND B) ISSUE ANY ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 TO FACILITATE THE RETRIEVAL OF THE CUSTODY OF THE DETAINEE KUM.VICTORIA MARY FERNANDEZ, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS AND HANDOVER THE SAME TO THE PETITIONER.

¶21

THIS WPHC COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, B.VEERAPPA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶22

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The present writ petition (Habeas Corpus) is filed

¶25

by the mother of the detune alleging the illegal detention of her daughter Kum. Victoria Mary Fernandez, who is aged about 23 years as on today.

¶26

In response to the notice issued by this

¶27

Court dated 29.09.2022, Sri. V.S. Hegde, learned SPP-II along with Sri. Thejesh P, learned HCGP appeared and submits that respondent No.4 has not detained Kum. Victoria Mary Fernandez. However, respondent No.4 is the care taker of the detune and the detune is residing separately and respondent No.4 is taking care of Kum. Victoria Mary Fernandez from the childhood. In fact in 2018, on the complaint filed by the very petitioner, the detune appeared before the Police Inspector, Bellanduru Police Station on 23.01.2018 and the detune in her own hand writing has given statement before the Police inspector that she was residing permanently with Teresa Kohit –

¶28

¶29

respondent No.4 and going on weekends to the house of Mary Fernandez and that the petitioner was taken to the NIMHANS Hospital are all false and further stated that she refused to contact her mother due to the incident of abuse and further stated that she is not maintaining anymore contact with her mother, which was also the conclusion of Vanitha Sahayavani and she is not inclined to meet her mother.

¶30

Statement made before the Bellandur Police Station is placed on record.

¶31

Though learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the detune is suffering from depression and thereby, she has taken treatment in the Reach Clinic, who in its Psycho-educational Assessment Report dated 14.07.2014 has reported that Victoria was suffering from ADHD-Inattentive presenting with major depressive episode and admitted to NIMHANS for her betterment. When the Psycho-educational Assessment Report and the

¶32

¶33

documents of NIMHANS were shown to Kum. Victoria Mary Fernandez, who is present before the Court, at the instance of the Police, she categorically denied the depression as alleged and the treatment taken at NIMHANS hospital and that the documents produced were of the year 2017-18 and now we are in the year 2022 and she submitted she is residing separately at No.32, Olive Planet Cut, Opp. to Krupa PG, Kattigenahalli, Bangalore – 560 064 and completed her degree from Reva University and respondent No.4 is taking care of her day-to-day needs and educational expenses.

¶34

Statement made by Kum. Victoria Mary Fernandez in the Open Court is placed on record.

¶35

When the Court suggested Kum. Victoria

¶36

Mary Fernandez to move with mother, she refused even to speak to her mother and refused to stay with her and she wants to reside separately and peacefully.

¶37

¶38

The said submission is placed on record.

¶39

Hence, tampering with justice and the statement before the jurisdictional police, the mother should not venture into filing the present writ petition (Hebeas Corpus) to harass Kum. Mary Victoria Fernandez, who is aged about 23 years since she is a major and morefully she has completed her degree and has categorically stated that respondent No.4 is taking care of her education from childhood.

¶40

Since the prayer sought directing the respondents to produce the detune before the Court is implemented and in view of her categorical statement that she does not intend to go with her mother and she wants to reside separately with the assistance of respondent No.4, the present petition would not survive for consideration.

¶41

In view of the above, we pass the

following:

ORDER

The writ petition (Habeas Corpus) is hereby dismissed with a warning to the petitioner not to repeat such activities against the children in future.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

MBM

Smt. Mary Fernandez v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mary Fernandez v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mahesh Ranka Vs Smt. Kushbu

T.Thyagaraj Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

S T Vijayakumar Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Mrs Blossom Fernandez Vs Somanath

Smt Manjula Vs Bandenawaj Gabasavalagi

The Managing Director Ksrtc Vs Smt Manjula