Mr Prabhanjan Gurumohan Vs the State of Karnataka

MR. PRABHANJAN GURUMOHAN ALIAS PRABHANJAN GURUMOHAN RAO, S/O GURU MOHAN C D, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O 3492 WAVERLEY STREET, PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94306.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. UDAYA PRAKASH M., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANASOUDA, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶15

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ALI ASKER ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU 560051 KARNATAKA, INDIA.

¶16

YELAHANKA POLICE STATION YELAHANKA, BANGALORE 560064 KARNATAKA, INDIA.

¶17

DIRECTORATE OF OVERSEAS CITIZEN'S SERVICES

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:44666-DB WPHC No. 113 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, US EMBASSY, SHANTHIPATH, CHANAKYAPRIYA, NEW DELHI 110 021.

¶22

SMT. SWETHA ARNADI D/O SHIVARAMARNADI, NO 55, 6TH CROSS MATRU LAYOUT, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE CITY KARNATAKA 560 064

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. THEJESH P, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SMT. JAYNA KOTHARI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR DR. PRAJWAL K ARADHYA, ADVOCATE AND SRI. KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶25

¶26

THIS WP(HC) IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE PETITIONER, WHEREIN PRAYS THAT THE HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE FORM OF HABEAS CORPUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO SECURE THE PRESENCE/BODY OF THE DETAINEE BABY ANIKA RAO, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, AND PRODUCE HER BEFORE THIS HONBLE COURT, ISSUE ANY ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 TO FACILITATE THE RETRIEVAL OF THE CUSTODY OF THE DETAINEE BABY ANIKA RAO, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS , AND HANDOVER THE SAME TO THE PETITIONER.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and

¶29

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:44666-DB WPHC No. 113 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶35

This writ petition (habeas corpus) is filed to secure the presence / body of the detainee Anika Rao, aged about 6 years and to produce her before this Court.

¶36

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior counsel for the respondent at considerable length. We have perused the materials placed on record including the report submitted to this Court by NIMHANS, Bengaluru, pursuant to order dated 17.12.2024.

¶37

Having considered the contentions advanced

¶38

and the materials placed on record in the instant case and in view of the fact that the respondent / mother has approached the Family Court, Bengaluru, with a petition seeking custody of the child and the question with regard to jurisdiction of Family Court to decide the matter of custody, guardianship and the question with regard to

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:44666-DB WPHC No. 113 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

jurisdiction of visitation rights is being considered by that Court, we are of the opinion that this writ petition (habeas

¶43

corpus) can be disposed of with the following directions:

¶44

(1) Having considered the materials on record as

¶45

well as the report, we are of the opinion that in the instant case, the writ petitioner i.e. the father of the child is entitled to have visitation rights over video conferencing with the child. We, therefore, direct that the father be permitted to have access to the child through video conferencing on every Saturday evening from 8.00 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. Indian Standard Time.

¶46

(2) The restraining order passed by the learned

¶47

Magistrate under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, shall stand modified to the above extent.

¶48

(3) The Family Court shall take up the preliminary

¶49

objection / application filed with regard to maintainability of the Guardian and Wards Petition and

¶50

5 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:44666-DB WPHC No. 113 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

shall decide on the same in accordance with law without undue delay.

¶54

(4) The report submitted by the NIMHANS, Bengaluru, pursuant to orders of this Court shall be resealed and sent to the Family Court for consideration. It is made clear that it will be open to the Family Court to provide copies to the learned counsel appearing for the parties as well, untrammelled by any ad-interim order passed in this writ petition (habeas corpus). The parties are permitted to make applications for issuance of such copies before the Family Court.

¶55

(5) It is made clear that we have not expressed

¶56

any opinion on the merits of the matter and all issues shall be decided in accordance with law.

¶57

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶58

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶59

RV

¶60

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

Mr Prabhanjan Gurumohan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Prabhanjan Gurumohan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bengaluru Water Supply Vs a Ramakrishnappa

Sri. K. Ramachandra Vs Smt. Shubha Kalyan

M/S. Maverick Holdings and Investments Private Limited Vs M/S. Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works

Smt. Eramma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri N K Payannavar, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Puttaraju Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer