It is ultimately up to the persons in a relationship to determine whether or not they are a good fit for one another. There can be no interference from the anybody in that area, is upheld by the High Court of Karnataka through the learned Judge JUSTICE B VEERAPPA AND JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA in the case of T.L. Nagaraju V The Inspector Of Police, (WRIT PETITION (HC) NO.42/2022).
Brief facts of the case:
Ms. T.N.Nisarga’s father, T.L.Nagaraju, has filed a writ of habeas corpus asking the court to order the respondents to bring his daughter in court and turn over custody to him. According to the petitioner, his daughter Ms.T.N.Nisarga, aged approximately 19 years, was studying engineering at G.Madae Gowda Institute of Technology (GMIT) in Mandya and was residing in the college’s hostel because it was more convenient for her than to travel daily from Thalagavadi Village, Malavlli Taluk. Further, it is argued that it was in her health’s best interest for her to stay at the hostel, since she was suffering from severe depression and her treating physician had counselled the petitioner that spending more time with her friends would aid in her recovery. As a result, the petitioner and his wife (the detainee’s parents) chose to enrol their daughter in a dormitory for her education. Moreover, it is alleged that while Nisarga was a student at the aforementioned institute, respondent No. 2, who was a van driver at the G.Madae Gowda Institute of Technology, was tasked with transporting female students from their hostel to the college and back to the hostel, taking advantage of the situation.
Taking advantage of Ms. T.N. Nisarga’s naivety, he encouraged and persuaded her to leave her parents and join him. Consequently, on 13 May 2022, the petitioner’s daughter left the hostel for college and did not return; the hostel officials notified the petitioner of this information. The petitioner inquired about his daughter’s location with her companions after obtaining information from the hostel’s Superintendent. At first, none of her friends said anything, but on 5/15/2022, a few of her acquaintances alerted the petitioner that respondent No. 2 may have abducted her. Immediately, the petitioner tried to contact respondent No. 2 on his mobile phone, which he obtained from his daughter’s friends, but he did not respond. When the petitioner went looking for the respondent No. 2/driver of the van at the above-mentioned address, he threatened the petitioner, and the petitioner, outraged by such illegal acts, filed a complaint.
As upholders of Constitutional freedom, the Courts protected their freedom. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the court deemed it appropriate to enable the petitioner’s daughter to live with the person she desires. The current writ petition (HC) was rejected because the Court was persuaded that the petitioner’s daughter is not being unlawfully detained by anyone.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – HARILAKSHMI