The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a transgender person, seeking directions to the police to produce an 18-year old girl, alleged to be his partner.
A division bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice K.S.Hemalekha dismissed the petition filed by the 23-year-old after the girl, who was produced in court, made a statement that petitioner is only her friend and she is not willing to go with the petitioner.
The petitioner, identifying as male, had submitted that the girl has been in a consensual relationship with him since 2019. Her parents did not approve her relationship with the petitioner since beginning and have resorted her to physical and emotional abuse for being in relationship with the petitioner.
He claimed that the girl, being unable to withstand the abuse inflicted on her, decided to leave her parents' house and came to the petitioner's house to stay with him on May 9, 2022. The next day, the police called the petitioner and informed that the girl's parents had filed a kidnapping case against him and therefore, asked the petitioner to bring her to the Police Station.
When the petitioner and the girl went to the police station, it is alleged that the family members forcefully separated her from the petitioner and took her away. It was submitted that the petitioner is unaware of the whereabouts of the girl and her safety and well being. The illegal and unlawful separation and confinement of the girl is without the authority of law and is in blatant violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The police produced the girl along with her parents before the court. When a query was made by the Court, the girl stated that petitioner is only her friend and she is not willing to go with petitioner and denied the allegation made in the writ petition that she is in consensual relationship with the petitioner since 2019 and further stated that she is willing to stay with her parents. The statement was made in the presence of counsel for the petitioner, Government Advocate and respondent Nos.3 and 4 (her parents).
Following which the court dismissed the petition as not maintainable. It even issued a warning to the petitioner by saying, "Though we were inclined to impose cost, at the intervention of learned Senior Counsel, we deem it proper to dismiss the writ petition, with a warning to the petitioner not to repeat such acts of violating the rights of a person as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in future."
Case Title: XXX v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WRIT PETITION HABEAS CORPUS No.57 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 235
Date of Order: 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2022
Appearance: Senior Advocate JAYNA KOTHARI, a/w Advocate SRIRAKSHA for petitioner; HCGP THEJESH P for respondents