DR. RAHUL LAKHUBHAI KATARIYA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In the above view of the matter and in view of the fact that there is a dispute with regard to the custody of child pending before the competent Family Court, we are of the opinion that the present Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus), is…
Judgment
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION (HABEAS CORPUS) NO. 46 OF 2026 BETWEEN:
1. DR. RAHUL LAKHUBHAI KATARIYA S/O LAKHUBHAI RAJABHAI KATARIYA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS OCCUPATION: DOCTOR R/AT A-602, HARMONY APARTMENT OPP: V R MALL, DUMAS ROAD SURAT-395 007. (BY SRI. RAVI M.M, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA HOME DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION BENGALURU-560 066. …PETITIONER - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:24241-DB WPHC No. 46 of 2026 HC-KAR
DR. JIGISHA @ JALU JIGISHA NAJABHAI W/O DR. RAHUL LAKHUBHAI KATARIYA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS OCCUPATION: DOCTOR PRESENTLY R/AT FLAT No. A-306 PAVANI PARK WEST, INNER CIRCLE, WHITEFIELD BENGALURU-560 066. AND ALSO CLINIC: VIDA SKIN AND HAIR TRANSPLANT 3RD FLOOR, FIRST CRY SHOWROOM ABOVE KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 066. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B A BELLIAPPA, SPP-I, A/W P THEJESH, HCGP) THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WHEREIN PETITIONER PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO IMMEDIATELY SECURE THE MINOR CHILD MASTER RAJVEER @ BABU FORM THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND PRODUCE BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:24241-DB WPHC No. 46 of 2026 HC-KAR CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “(a) Issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent No.2 to immediately secure the minor child Master Rajveer @ “Babu” from the respondent No.3 and produce before this Hon’ble Court. (b) Direct the Respondent No.3 from further withholding detaining or denying access of the minor child to the Petitioner in violation of the Hon’ble Court Order. (c) Pass any other or further orders, writ, or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”
3. We notice from the pleadings in the writ petition itself, that M.C.No.7193/2023 was pending between the parties before the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, and orders have been passed on the same on 18.03.2025. A Guardian and Wards case in G&WC.No.256/2024 is also pending between the parties in - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:24241-DB WPHC No. 46 of 2026 HC-KAR the said Court. We notice that by order dated 20.02.2026, an Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioner herein for interim custody has been rejected and the matter stands posted for evidence to 06.06.2026.
Operative part
In the above view of the matter and in view of the fact that there is a dispute with regard to the custody of child pending before the competent Family Court, we are of the opinion that the present Writ Petition (Habeas Corpus), is not maintainable. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
The contentions of the parties are left open to be decided in the Family Court. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE KS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.