Karnataka High Court
Mrs. Shabana A @ Shabana Kausar vs Dr Mohamed Ateeq on 29 August, 2025
-
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT PETITION (HABEAS CORPUS) NO.85 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
MRS. SHABANA A. @ SHABANA KAUSAR
D/O MR. AHMED-UL-HAQ
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT No.1014
SOBHA CHRYSANTHEMUM
THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD
NARAYANAPURA
BENGALURU-560 077
ALSO AT:
BOGANVILLA FURNISHING PVT. LTD.
32B, 8TH BLOCK, 80 FEET ROAD
ARKAVATHI LAYOUT
JAKKUR VILLAGE
BENGALURU-560 064
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:
SOBHA HRC PRISTINE
APARTMENT No.4182
18TH FLOOR, 4TH BLOCK
OPPOSITE TO K.V. JAYARAM ROAD
AMRUTHALLI MAIN ROAD
JAKKUR LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 092
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
-
2
AND:
1 . DR. MOHAMED ATEEQ
S/O LATE PARAY JAN R.
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
RESIDING AT No.9, 1ST FLOOR
RAJAPPA BLOCK, 2ND CROSS
CHURCH ROAD, J.C. NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 006
WORKING AT
AL BIDAA DENTAL CENTRE
PO BOX No.14776
BUILDING No.267
NUAIJA WEST
NEAR OLIVE INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL
DOHA, STATE OF QATAR
2 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
3 . COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
BENGALURU CITY
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.A. BELLIAPPA, SPP-1 A/W
SRI. THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WP(HC) IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT No.1 HEREIN TO
PRODUCE THE CHILDREN BEFORE THIS COURT.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 19.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-
3
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:-
"Issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the
Respondent No.1 herein to produce the children before
this Hon'ble Court."
2. We have heard Shri. Madhukar Deshpande,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. B.A. Belliappa,
learned Special Public Prosecutor- I along with Shri. Thejesh.
P, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for
respondents No.2 and 3.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the writ petition is filed in view of the fact
that respondent No.1 has taken away the children and is
denying the petitioner her valuable rights as a parent. We
notice that there is a G & WC Case No.11/2020 filed before
the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru and that orders
have been passed thereon. It is further submitted that as
-
against an order passed by the Judge of the Family Court, a
writ petition is also filed by the petitioner and is pending
before this Court.
4. In support of his contentions, he has relied on the
following decisions:-
• Tejaswini Gaud and Others v. Shekhar
Jagdish Prasad Tewari and Others reported
in (2019) 7 SCC 42; and
• Vishal Verma v. State Govt. of NCT of
Delhi and Others dated 16.01.2025 in
W.P.(CRL) 2808/2024 and CRL.M.A.
110/2025.
5. The writ petition averments are that
O.S.No.10/2020 was filed by the respondent - husband
seeking Dissolution of Marriage and the petitioner had filed
her written statement in the said suit. Thereafter, G & WC
No.11/2020 was filed by the respondent before the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru and objections were filed by
the petitioner. It is stated that in the last week of August
2021, the respondent had requested that the children should
be permitted to accompany him to Doha for vacation. It is
-
stated that initially though the petitioner refused; upon
repeated requests and on an assurance that her brother
would accompany the children, the petitioner had agreed to
send the children to Doha without seeking legal advice.
However, thereafter, the children were not returned to India.
It is further stated that the petitioner on 19.04.2024 filed an
I.A.No.8 under Section 12 of G & WC Act, seeking direction
to the first respondent to produce the children and to restore
their custody to the petitioner, which had been heard and
after multiple hearings, the Family Court had passed an
order dated 15.04.2025 stating that I.A.No.8 requires
evidence and would be heard along with the main petition.
It is against the said order that the petitioner has preferred
a writ petition, which is pending before this Court. It is also
clear from the order sheet of the G & W C No.11/2020 that
the children had been kept present before the Family Court
and the Family Court had interacted with the children.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the instant
case, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case for this
Court to exercise its extraordinary original jurisdiction under
-
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and to issue a
writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for the production of
children. This is a matter where the normal law of the land
exercised through the Family Courts have to take its course.
7. In the above view of the matter, the writ petition
fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. We make it
clear that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the
matter and that it is for the petitioner to take recourse to
the remedies available under law and to take appropriate
steps in accordance with law for securing of the children or
for visitation rights.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
cp*
