Karnataka High Court
Poojitha J vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:8827-DB
WPHC No. 16 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION HABEAS CORPUS NO. 16 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
POOJITHA J.
C/O ROOPA RAM
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT. 76/B, VINAYA MARGHA
9 MAIN, SIDDARTHA LAYOUT
MYSURU-570 011
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. GEETHA RAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY
Digitally signed
VIDHANA SOUDHA
by
CHANNEGOWDA
BENGALURU-560 001
PREMA
Location: High
Court of 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Karnataka
MYSURU CITY
LOKARANJAN MAHAL RD
DOORA, MYSURU
KARNATAKA-570 010
3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER
NAZARABAD POLICE STATION
5TH CROSS, NAZARBAD, MYSURU
KARNATAKA-570 010
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:8827-DB
WPHC No. 16 of 2025
4. THE CHAIRMAN
DISTRICT CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEE
MYSURU DISTRICT
No.362, 15TH MAIN RD
SIDDHARTHA LAYOUT
MYSURU, KARNATAKA-570 011
5. CHAYADEVI ADOPTION CENTRE
No.44/28, JAYANAGARA EXTENSION
MYSURU CITY
MYSURU-570 014
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.A. BELLIAPPA, SPP-I WITH
SRI. M.V. ANOOPKUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS WP(HC) IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE PETITIONER, WHEREIN
PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ISSUE
A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING TO PRODUCE THE
CHILD NAMED MANALI R. FORM ILLEGAL CUSTODY OF THE
RESPONDENT No.5 AND AFTER PRELIMINARY ENQUIRE
RESTORE THE CUSTODY OF THE CHILD TO THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JDUGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:8827-DB
WPHC No. 16 of 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus) is filed seeking
directions to produce the minor child of the petitioner -
Kumari Manali. R. from illegal custody of respondent No.5
and restore the custody of the child to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner contends that the child, who is
aged about 7 years, is born to her and her live-in partner
Shri. Rooparam. It is contended that the fourth
respondent has abruptly taken custody of the child on an
alleged complaint that the child was illegally adopted and
has entrusted custody to the fifth respondent. It is
submitted that the child was being looked after by the
petitioner, who is the biological mother without any room
for complaint and that the petitioner is being harassed
continuously by the fourth respondent on the pretext that
the child is illegally adopted.
NC: 2025:KHC:8827-DB
3. The learned SPP had accepted notice on behalf
of respondents No.1 and 2. Notice had been ordered to
respondents No.4 and 5. When the matter was taken up
today, the fourth respondent as well as the Protection
officer of the Child Welfare Committee, Mysuru (for short
'CWC') were present before us. They had also made
available the records relating to taking the custody of the
child. It is contended that there were complaints received
from the wife of the petitioner's paramour that the child
was illegally adopted and that the petitioner had on an
earlier occasion given a statement before CWC admitting
that the child was given to her by the biological mother in
return for money. It is submitted that it was in those
circumstances that the custody of the child was taken from
the petitioner. It is submitted that the child is entrusted
to the care of the fifth respondent - Institution at present.
4. We have interacted with the petitioner who was
present before us as well as respondent No.4 and the Child
Protection Officer of CWC and Mr. Rooparam, who claims
NC: 2025:KHC:8827-DB
to be the biological father of the child. We notice that
there is no allegation that the child is in need of care and
protection as defined under Section 2(14) of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for
short 'JJ Act, 2015'), there is no contention that the
petitioner is harming the child in any manner. The
Protection officer attached to the CWC would contend that
it was on allegation that the child was illegally adopted or
purchased from the biological mother by the petitioner,
that action had been taken against the petitioner and the
child was forcibly taken custody of and detained in the fifth
respondent - Institution.
5. Having considered the contentions advanced,
we are of the opinion that in the absence of any allegation
that the child is being trafficked or otherwise harmed in
any manner by the petitioner, who claims to be the
biological mother of the child, the action taken by the
fourth respondent to take forcible custody of the child
NC: 2025:KHC:8827-DB
from the petitioner was completely without jurisdiction.
Even if there is an allegation that the petitioner is not the
biological mother and that the child is illegally adopted,
the course was open to the fourth respondent to register
an FIR as against the petitioner and to take appropriate
action to see that the penalty is imposed after a fair trial in
the matter. Further, in the absence of necessary
contentions, the action of the fourth respondent in having
taken forcible custody of the child from the petitioner is
completely unsupported by the provisions of the 2015 Act.
6. Section 2(14) of the JJ Act, 2015 defines a child
in need of care and protection. We notice that there is no
contention raised that the child falls in any of the
categories under the said Sub-Section. The powers and
functions of the CWC are provided in Sections 29 and 30
of the JJ Act, 2015. Section 31 provides for production of
a child in need of care and protection before the
Committee by the persons provided therein. Section 36
provides for the inquiry to be conducted by the CWC. It is
NC: 2025:KHC:8827-DB
only after such inquiry that the child is to be placed in the
specialised adoption agency. In the instant case, we find
that there is no contention that the child is in need of care
and protection as provided under the JJ Act, 2015. On the
complaint raised by one Smt. Geetha wife of Shri.
Rooparam, it appears that an FIR has been lodged against
the petitioner. If that be so, appropriate action is liable to
be taken against the petitioner in accordance with law, in
case, she is found guilty as charged. However, in the facts
of the instant case, we find that there is no order passed
or finding entered as against the petitioner at present. No
material is also available in the files of CWC, which would
justify the forceful act of the fourth respondent or the
lodging of the child with the fifth respondent. The child
has been admittedly in the custody of the petitioner for
the past seven years of its life. Even if there are
allegations or criminal cases registered against the
petitioner, in the absence of any contentions that the best
interest of the child would be served by taking it forcibly
NC: 2025:KHC:8827-DB
away from the petitioner, such action, is clearly illegal and
against the basic requirements of law.
7. Moreover, from the records, we notice that
there were earlier instances, where complaints have been
raised with regard to the identity of the child and the
illegal adoption as alleged. However, the complaint had
once been closed and thereafter reopened. We fail to see
under what provisions of law, the said action have been
taken by the fourth respondent and its officials. It is
pertinent to note that the petitioner has raised allegations
of harassment and corruption as against the functionaries
of the fourth respondent.
8. In the above factual situation, we are of the
opinion that the custody of the child is to be restored to
the petitioner. The fourth respondent shall take
immediate steps to see that the custody of the child is
restored from the fifth respondent - Institution to the
petitioner, forthwith, at any rate, within two days, from
today. The petitioner as well as Mr. Rooparam, who states
NC: 2025:KHC:8827-DB
that he is the biological father of the child shall place
affidavit on record before this Court that the child will be
properly looked after and shall be taken proper care and
that they take full responsibility for the care and wellbeing
of the child. The affidavit shall also give the full details of
their identity and address and they shall also undertake
that the child shall be produced before any Court or other
authority as required, in accordance with law.
9. In case the writ petitioner has any complaints
with regard to the handling of the child, she is free to
make a complaint as against the concerned persons before
the appropriate authorities and in case such complaint is
made, the same shall be considered in accordance with
law.
10. It is made clear that the directions in this Writ
Petition are being issued only in the best interest of the
child and in view of the fact that there is no complaint that
the child is at any risk at the hands of the petitioner or her
paramour. These observations shall not influence any
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:8827-DB
proper investigation into the FIR registered against the
petitioner or into any investigation into her actions, which
can be taken and concluded in accordance with law.
11. Accordingly, Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus)
stands disposed of.
Pending IAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
CP
