In a case titled Dr, The Court noted that its coordinate bench had issued several directions to secure the presence of the minor child and had also directed initiation of a civil and criminal contempt proceeding against the woman. Rajeev Giri v. State of Karnataka and Others, the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday instructed the police to contact the woman’s job and make sure that her salary and benefits are withheld until she complies with the court’s decision to give her husband custody of their kid.
Justices Alok Aradhe and Anant Ramnath Hegde’s bench made notice of the fact that a different court’s coordinate bench had issued multiple orders to ensure the attendance of the child and had also ordered the start of a civil and criminal contempt case against the woman.
The Court declared that failing to follow these instructions amounted to an abuse of the legal system. The father of the underage child had petitioned the court for habeas corpus, which was being heard. He felt wronged by the mother’s failure to comply with a March 2022 family court judgement that ordered her to turn the minor kid over to him by Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act.
The mother contended that her daughter was not being held against her will. She added that the petitioner had filed for custody five years after she and the petitioner had split up when their daughter was three years old. She argued that the legal action had only been started to torment her and her father. She further claimed that the petitioner had not paid her the necessary amount of support. She also let the court know that legal action had been taken to carry out the family court ruling. She argued that the Court’s intervention was not necessary as a result.
The woman’s continued custody of the child was not permitted, according to the court, as it went against its decisions that were binding on the parties and had reached finality. The concerned Station House Officer (SHO) must give the petitioner custody of the daughter within 24 hours of the date the order was received, the Court ordered the Commissioner of Police to make sure of this. It further instructed the police to speak with the wife’s employer to request that they withhold all benefits due to her until she complies with the order. The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Sreevatsa and Advocate Gowtham Raghunath.
For the State of Karnataka, Special Public Prosecutor VS Hegde made an appearance. For the respondent-wife, senior attorney MT Nanaiah and attorney MC Kumaraswamy appeared.
