Disposed

Mr Bharat Pundalik Naik v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2024WPHC/46/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought habeas corpus to trace and produce his minor sons, citing non-implementation of family court visitation orders. The High Court disposed of the petition, holding it lacked substance as enforcement lay with the Family Court, not the police. Liberty was granted to move the Family Court.

What did the court decide?

None; liberty granted to approach Family Court

Mr Bharat Pundalik Naik Vs State of Karnataka — Child Custody and Guardianship | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:18986-DB WPHC No. 46 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶9

WP(HC) NO. 46 OF 2024

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

MR BHARAT PUNDALIK NAIK S/O MR PUNDALIK MANJUNATH NAIK AGED ABOUT 35 YEAR S PERMANENT ADDRESS B-1001, EXCEL TOWERS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY A S MARG, NEAR BHAVANI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE OPP. IIT MAIN GATE, MUMBAI - 400076 ALSO RESIDING AT: 4250 EI CAMINO REAL, APT C323 PALO ALTO, CA 94306 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. SIDDHARTH PADMARAJ DESAI - ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

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

¶17

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER BASAVANAGUDI POLICE STATION SHANKAR MUTT ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU - 560004.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:18986-DB WPHC No. 46 of 2024

¶20

MRS. RAMITHA BHARAT NAIK ALIAS RAMITHA DINESH CHITLOOR D/O MR C J DINESH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 8/16 PUTTANAN ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU - 560004.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B A BELLIAPPA – SPP A/W SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYAM – HCGP FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2; SMT. PRAMILA NESARGI – SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI SHASHIDHAR BELGUMBA – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

¶22

THIS WP(HC) IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY DIRECTING THE 2^ND RESPONDENT POLICE TO TRACE AND PRODUCE THE PETITIONER’S TWO MINOR SONS , STAVYA NAIK AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS 2 MONTHS AND VEDITH NAIK AGED ABOUT 1 YEARS 11 MONTHS BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT.

¶23

THIS WP(HC), COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, K. SOMASHEKAR .J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution in the nature of Habeas Corpus against the State inclusive of respondent No 3, seeking interference relating to the issues involved between petitioner and respondent No 3.

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:18986-DB WPHC No. 46 of 2024

¶27

Petitioner and respondent No 3 got married on

¶28

31.08.2017 as per the customs prevailing in their society. Subsequent to that respondent No 3 and petitioner were blessed with two children.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner presses into consideration of the grounds urged in this petition for implementation of orders passed by the Court below in G & WC No.135/2024 – Annexure F. The said order indicates the petitioner herein can speak to the children every alternate days for 15 minutes through whatsapp video call between 5.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. for which the respondent is directed to co-ordinate with the petitioner. However, this order is required to be implemented by the Family Court where the proceedings were initiated by the parties.

¶30

Consequently, this petition do not have any

¶31

substance to persuade as the relief is sought against the respondent authority.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:18986-DB WPHC No. 46 of 2024

¶34

Writ petition is disposed of in terms of the reasons

¶35

stated supra.

¶36

However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to

¶37

move application before Family Court.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Mr Bharat Pundalik Naik v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Bharat Pundalik Naik v. 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

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs M/S Sreekanh Constructions

V. Yogish Vs Master Manvith

Mrs Rekha Hegde Vs Mr Guruprasad M N Hegde

Nanjundeshwara. S. R. Vs Smt. Suwarna

Mr. Eustace Cutinha Vs Ms. Rashmi Sequeira

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Tp Hub Vs Smt Chandrarekha R