Disposed¶41

Smt. Sachita R v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2025WPHC/90/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPHC No. 90 of 2025, High Court of Karnataka, decided 02.09.2025 — habeas corpus petition under Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India, filed by major daughter (Sachita R.) alleging illegal confinement and cruelty by parents (Ravikumar R.N. and Kalavathi); Court rejected the detention claim as the petitioner had moved about and filed the petition on her own volition; petition disposed of with liberty to approach police and appropriate authorities; no precedent cited; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

No habeas corpus relief; writ petition disposed of leaving open all contentions of the writ petitioner and her right to approach the appropriate authorities in accordance with law. ¶41

Smt. Sachita R Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:34410-DB WPHC No. 90 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION (HABEAS CORPUS) NO. 90 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. SACHITA R. AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, (MAJOR) D/O RAVI KUMAR R.N. R/AT No.6/1A1, DODDAGUBBI CROSS OPPOSITE NANJUNDESHWARA KALYANA MANTAP, KOTHANUR DR. SHIVARAMA KARANTH NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 077

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA

¶14

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU

¶17

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE CITY INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU-560 001

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:34410-DB WPHC No. 90 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KOTHANUR POLICE STATION BENGALURU-560 006

¶22

MR. RAVIKUMAR R.N. S/O NAGAREDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT No.6/1A1, DODDAGUBBI CROSS OPPOSITE NANJUNDESHWARA KALYANA MANTAP, KOTHANUR DR. SHIVARAMA KARANTH NAGAR BENGALURU-560 077

¶23

MRS. KALAVATHI W/O RAVI KUMAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT No.6/1A1, DODDAGUBBI CROSS OPPOSITE NANJUNDESHWARA KALYANA MANTAP, KOTHANUR DR. SHIVARAMA KARANTH NAGAR BENGALURU-560 077

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. B.A. BELLIYAPPA, SPP-1, A/W SRI. THEJESH .P., HCGP)

¶26

THIS WP(HC) IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYS TO (a) A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF HABEAS CORPUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT/S, ORDERS/, DIRECTION/S AND (b) DIRECT THE RESPONDENT No.3 TO SECURE RELEASE OF PETITIONER FROM THE WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT OF RESPONDENT No.4 AND 5 TO RESCUE FROM THE CLUTCHES OF THE RESPONDENT No.4 AND 5 AND ETC.

¶27

THIS WP(HC), COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:34410-DB WPHC No. 90 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

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

¶34

This writ petition is filed seeking for a direction to respondent No.3 to secure release of the writ petitioner from the wrongful confinement of respondents No.4 and 5 and to rescue her from their clutches. There is a further prayer sought to direct respondents No.4 and 5 to allow the writ petitioner to live a life with dignity.

¶35

We find that the writ petition is filed by the alleged detenue herself and the allegations are against her father and mother.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner had come away from her home and had personally filed this writ petition. The allegations are that respondents No.4 and 5 are treating her with cruelty and are curtailing her basic rights, including her right to live a dignified life.

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:34410-DB WPHC No. 90 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Having considered the contentions advanced, we

¶40

are of the opinion that in case the writ petitioner has any complaint as against respondents No.4 and 5, it is open to her to approach the police, who will make an investigation into the matter. Since the writ petitioner is admittedly able to move about and has approached the counsel and has filed this writ petition on her own, the contention that she is kept under detention cannot be accepted. It is for the petitioner to take recourse to the normal remedies available to her under law.

¶41

The writ petition is accordingly, disposed of

¶42

leaving open all the contentions of the writ petitioner and her right to approach the appropriate authorities in accordance with law.

¶43

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶44

Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶45

PN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6

Smt. Sachita R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sachita R 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B N Shivaprakash Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

A S Venkatesh Vs M Devendra

Sri Bhadra Reddy Vs M/S Sri Vinayaka Infra

The Commissioner Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.B. Devendra Vs the Commissioner

M N Ashoka Vs Neelamma