flu ' ' « [:By _'.'*3.1f'i Correa, Adv.) n A. The State of Karnataka. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT _ DATED THIS THE 08¢" DAY OF NovEMI3:;R " THE HON'BLE MR»? THE HON'BLE MeR,_qUs1*Ie§; WRIT PETITION Between: V. I 1.
Sri Kashinath . *
S/0.Harip:aSaVd’D3_}_ui, V’ A’
Aged about ’33jyear:’s,’ .4 _’ _
R/0.SaiJ.g&.=3hi.Vii?éI;¥§€’. ~ %
Deasin Post; ‘ _ ” ”
Buardwan'”‘D_istrict,_ ”
West Bengal 5- 713 7101*.
2. V °Smt’.’aCha”ii1aVM’ Dalui,
WEW/’0*.Kash1nath’ Dalui,
Aged abomv y.e’ars,
R/’o.Saugachj_i Village,
Deasin Pest,
‘ TBuardwar;_1 District,
” west Ben-gai — 713 101. .. Petitioners
Represented by Home Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore 1.
Izéws’
“not have taken over the child.
21.09.2010. the learned Magistrate directed
child be sent to the State Children’s Home,—-
Road, Bangalore.
4. On a memo filed byft1ri§~~_}9getiAti0n.e1~3;
permitted to speak to childiihfVc_fi”hereafter’thelstate
Children’s Home to the
petitioners child, they
were to ‘before they could
speak 0 ‘ »
; 5. it this loacliground, the present Habeas
contending in the first place,
A0’the’__aruth’orityj’V-constituted under The Juvenile Justice
(Care Protection of Children Act), 2000,
it Jhereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’ for short] has no
.0 jurisdiction over the child and therefore they could
Secondly, it is
contended that the learned Magistrate also had no
jurisdiction to pass the order handing over the
custody of the child to the State Children’s Home.
= //
1.2
6
can be said that this case falls within the pL1I’VlE3}V*.._(:)lll”–§1
writ of Habeas Corpus.
6. In fact, the girl is:~–“‘o’ef-ore
questioned by us, Whether slielis go.
the petitioners, though
with the petitioners; ghlimthl them.
Under these not be
appropriate present proceedings,
to who is the lawful
guardian:, of the child and in
whose custcdy’th’e interest of the child would be best
P1;5tVé’Caf¢d”«WhiC1ll iiiii to be considered by the
.ap’pro’priate .Aa1.1’tl1orities under the Various enactments
gov-erniingthe same. Certainly the present writ
it tpetitionlfor Habeas Corpus is not the remedy.
7. In that View of the matter, the present writ
V petition is rejected, reserving liberty to the petitioners
to work out the remedies available to them in law. It
is made clear that none of the observations made by;
4.’
J’iL’_/’9 – ”
us in this order wouici come in the H
authorities considering the ciaim of the H
merits and they shall decide
any way being influenced *
observations.