27/04/2023, 19:52 High Court of Karnataka Official Web Site

Status: Pending
Case Number: WPHC 30/2023 Classification: Date of Filing: 11/04/2023 13:27:17
(KAHC010193182023)
Petitioner: DR. RAJEEV GIRI Pet. Advocate: N GOWTHAM
RAGHUNATH
Respondent: STATE OF KARNATAKA Resp. Advocate:
Filing No.: WPHC 30/2023 Judge: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND C.M.
POONACHA Presided by SSDYJ ,CMPJ
Last Posted For: ORDERS Last Date of Action: 19/04/2023 Last Action Taken: ADJOURNED
Next Hearing Date: 27/04/2023

Daily Orders: WPHC 30/2023

1 S SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND C.M. POONACHA SSDYJ ,CMPJ 27/04/2023

https://karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/karjud/case_details_hck.php?params=UFdkQmZjM3lKOGY2TFZkZjkvNkVUc0k1bXRURERIZU1Jekl3YTREZVJPdlNMSUlZSjkxT1JYakxqc2o2R3o5Z0F5bmpaTlcyUXQ5T2QzWmxhT0E0UlE9P… 1/3
27/04/2023, 19:52 High Court of Karnataka Official Web Site

It is to be noticed that this Court on 19.04.2023 had directed the listing of this petition on 27.04.2023 before
the Vacation Bench. The extract of the order dated 19.04.2023 is as follows:-
"…. From perusal of the record, it appears that learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to serve
hand summons on respondent No.3.
A note has been put up by the office that service of notice on respondent No.3 is awaited. The Court Officer
has handed over an e-mail which is sent by respondent No.3 to the Registrar (Judicial). In the e-mail, it is
clearly stated that respondent No.3 is aware that the matter is listed today before this Court. In the e-mail, a
prayer has been made to engage a counsel and to avail for the legal remedies.
Office is directed to prepare a notice and handover the same to the learned State Public Prosecutor-2 who
shall ensure that the aforesaid notice is served on respondent No.3 through the Commissioner of Police…."

Sri V.S.Hegde, Learned State Public Prosecutor-2 upon instructions has filed the Status Report and states that
despite best efforts, the Police Authorities have not been able to trace respondent No.3 and it is further
submitted that there are reasons to believe that the respondent No.3 is at Delhi.

Such submission is made on the basis of information furnished by Mr.S.Badrinath, Deputy Commissioner of
Police, Crime-2, Bengaluru, who is present before the Court.

Sri S. Sreevatsa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms.Ankitha G. Shelke for the petitioner
submits that the attitude of respondent No.3 has created a grave doubt and there is possibility that
respondent No.3 may move away from the jurisdiction of Courts in India.

It is to be noticed the Family Court has allowed G & W C No.128/2018 by order dated 03.03.2022, whereby the
respondent No.3 was directed to hand over the custody of the minor child to the custody of petitioner herein
within one month from the date of the said order. However, despite lapse of more than one year, the order
dated 03.03.2022 remains unexecuted.
It is to be noticed that MFA No.2786/2022 (GW) filed before this Court against the order dated 03.03.2022
passed in G & WC No.128/2022 was also dismissed by a reasoned order on 31.01.2023 and subsequently, the
Special Leave petition (C) No.4869/2023 filed before the Apex Court has also been rejected on 29.03.2023.
Despite efforts by respondent No.3 to seek reopening/recalling of the order dated 29.03.2023 which has
attained finality, for the present, there is no option for her than to adhere to the directions passed in G & WC
No.128/2018.

On an earlier occasion, when this Court had issued notice, it is noticed that respondent No.3 has filed a
memo in the Registry, in which it is clear that she is aware of the hearing of the matter, despite which she is
evading her presence.

It is also noticed from the Status Report filed by learned SPP-2 that efforts to serve notice to respondent No.3
has not fructified, as respondent No.3 has changed her residence and is not available at her Office also.

It is also submitted that Foreign Regional Registration Offices (FRRO) has been informed and Look Out Notice
has also been issued.
Same is taken note of.

This is a matter requiring serious attention in light of respondent No.3 trying to evade the Court process and
it is clear that she does not intend to appear until coercive steps are taken and even otherwise, it appears
that the actions of respondent No.3 amounts to an abuse of judicial process.

Accordingly, taking note of the previous orders and the fact that the order dated 03.03.2022 passed in G &
WC No.128/2018 has attained finality, it would be just and appropriate to ensure the presence of respondent
No.3 before this Court.

Accordingly, issue Non-bailable Warrant to respondent No.3 to be executed through the Commissioner of
Police, Bengaluru directing the said authority to keep the respondent No.3 present before this Court.

Needless to state that in light of the order dated 03.03.2022 passed in G & WC No.128/2018 and taking note
of the power conferred under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1977, while executing the Non-
bailable Warrant, the Police Authorities to ensure that the child accompanies respondent No.3 when she is
produced before this Court. It is also directed that the Police Authorities shall take all such measures as may
be appropriate to take care of the interests of child during transit, in the event the respondent No.3 is
arrested outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

It is also clarified that while executing the Non-bailable Warrant in the event, the respondent No.3 is at the
jurisdiction outside Karnataka, the appropriate Police Authorities are directed to co-operate in ensuring the
execution of Non-bailable Warrant issued to respondent No.3.

List the matter on 09.05.2023

https://karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/karjud/case_details_hck.php?params=UFdkQmZjM3lKOGY2TFZkZjkvNkVUc0k1bXRURERIZU1Jekl3YTREZVJPdlNMSUlZSjkxT1JYakxqc2o2R3o5Z0F5bmpaTlcyUXQ5T2QzWmxhT0E0UlE9P… 2/3
27/04/2023, 19:52 High Court of Karnataka Official Web Site

2 ALOK ARADHE AND VIJAYKUMAR A PATIL 19/04/2023

Smt.Ankitha G.Shelke, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr.V.S.Hegde, learned State Public Prosecutor-2 for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
From perusal of the record, it appears that learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to serve hand
summons on respondent No.3.
A note has been put up by the office that service of notice on respondent No.3 is awaited. The Court Officer
has handed over an e-mail which is sent by respondent No.3 to the Registrar (Judicial). In the e-mail, it is
clearly stated that respondent No.3 is aware that the matter is listed today before this Court. In the e-mail, a
prayer has been made to engage a counsel and to avail for the legal remedies.
Office is directed to prepare a notice and handover the same to the learned State Public Prosecutor-2 who
shall ensure that the aforesaid notice is served on respondent No.3 through the Commissioner of Police.
List on 27.04.2023 before the vacation Bench.
On the aforesaid date, appropriate order shall be passed.

3 ALOK ARADHE AND VIJAYKUMAR A PATIL 12/04/2023

Smt.Aakitha G.Shelke, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to comply with the office objections
during the course of the day.
Mr.V.S.Hegde, learned SPP-II accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Issue emergent notice to respondent No.3.
In addition, learned counsel for the petitioner is at liberty to take out hand summons for service of notice on
respondent No.3.
List on 19.04.2023.

Content Maintained Designed and India Portal Digital India Todays Visitor Count:

Disclaimer  |   Website Policy  |   Accessibility Statement  |  Sitemap  |  By Hosted By 42353

Screen Reader Visitor Count:

HCK1KA03 | Last Updated:26/04/2023  |  2014 © High Court Karnataka 241374374

of Karnataka. All Rights Reserved Computer Main NIC, Karnataka [ Since 29/07/2009 ]

Centre

https://karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/karjud/case_details_hck.php?params=UFdkQmZjM3lKOGY2TFZkZjkvNkVUc0k1bXRURERIZU1Jekl3YTREZVJPdlNMSUlZSjkxT1JYakxqc2o2R3o5Z0F5bmpaTlcyUXQ5T2QzWmxhT0E0UlE9P… 3/3