Karnataka High Court
Ms. Elizabeth Thomas Thoppil vs Reverend Sister Lissy Chacko on 6 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION (HABEAS CORPUS) No.100 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
Ms. ELIZABETH THOMAS THOPPIL
ALSO CALLED AS ELSIE
DAUGHTER OF LATE
MR. THOMAS THOPPIL AND
LATE MRS. CLARA THOPPIL
CHRISTIAN
MAJOR BY AGE
BY PROFESSION A HOUSE SERVANT
PERMANENT RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS AT
NEW No.86, 1ST FLOOR
"THHYKIL THOPPILCHATEAU"
III CROSS ROAD, 20 FEET ROAD
GEETHANJALI LAYOUT
KAGGADASAPURA
K.R. PURAM HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST OFFICE
BENGALURU-560 093
KARNATAKA
E-MAIL ID - [email protected]
MOBILE No.9606509726
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JOSE JACOB OLEKKENGIL, ADVOCATE)
-
2
AND:
1. REVEREND SISTER LISSY CHACKO
D/O CHACKO
CHRISTIAN
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
HAVING HER HEAD OFFICE
AND RESIDENCE IN INDIA AT
"SHANTHI NILYA"
No.12, CORNWELL ROAD
BEHIND SAINT JOSEPH'S COLLEGE HOSTEL
RICHMOND TOWN, BENGALURU-560 025
KARANATAKA, REPUBLIC OF INDIA
MOBILE No.815695695
E MAIL ID: [email protected]
[email protected]
2. REVEREND SISTER GERALDINE
ALIS GERALD
ERSTWHILE SISTER SUPERIOR OF
SAINT MICHAEL'S COVNENT
HOME AT CARE OF THE RESPONDENT No.1
AT THE SAME ADDRESS
3. REVEREDN SISTER PREETI JOSEPH
D/O JOSEPH
CHRISTIAN, BY PROFESSION
A RELIGIOUS SISTER
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
WORKING AT PRESENT AS THE SISTER
SUPERIOR OF SAINT MICHAEL'S CONVENT
HOME LOCATED AT 80 FEET ROAD
SIR. C.V. RAMAN ROAD
ADJACENT TO RESURRECTION CHURCH
INDIRA NAGAR, FIRST STAGE
BENGALURU-560 038
KARNATAKA
MOBILE No.9945281073
4. REVEREND SISTER ALICE
CHRISTIAN
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
BY PROFESSION A ROMAN CATHOLIC NUN
-
3
ADMINISTRATION-IN-CHARGE OF
SAINT MICHAEL'S CONVENT
AND HOME AT THE SAME ADDRESS AS
THE RESPONDENT No.3 ABOVE
5. SURGEON AND REVEREND SISTER ISON
M.B.B.S., D.G.O.,
BY PROFESSION A GYNAECOLOGIST AND
OBSTETRICIAN
AND PRESENTLY CARE OF
THE RESPONDENT No.1
AT THE SAME ADDRESS AS HER
6. THE COMMISSIOENR OF POLICE
No.1, INFANTRY ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
KARNATAKA
7. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
EAST ZONE
No.52, MILLERS ROAD
BENGALURU
KARNATAKA
8. THE POLICE INSEPCTOR
INDIRA NAGAR POLICE STATION
OLD MADRAS ROAD
BENGALURU-560 038
KARNATAKA
9. POLICE INSPECTOR HARISH P.C.
FORMER INSPECTOR OF INDIRA NAGAR
POLICE STATION
NOW CARE A.D.G.P.
I/C OF C.I.D. HEAD QUARTERS
AT BENGALURU
10 . POLICE INSEPCTOR GOVERDAN
HINDU
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
INCUMBENT POLICE INSPECTOR IN-CHARGE
OF INDIRA NAGAR POLICE STATION
-
4
AT OLD MADRAS ROAD
INDIRA NAGAR LAYOUT
BENGLURU-560 038
11 . DR. SHIVE GOWDA, M.B.B.S.
MEDICAL OFFICER
OF B.B.M.P. WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF
THE MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH
WARD No.42, No.10
HALASUR WATER TANK ROAD
SIVAN CHETTY GARDEN POST OFFICE
BENGALURU-560 042
KARNATKA
MOBILE No.8970088882
12 . THE CHEIF MEDICAL OFFICER
B.B.M.P, N.R. SQUARE
J.C. ROAD
BENGALURU-560 002
KARNATAKA
REPUBLIC OF INDIA
13 . HIS GRACE DR. PETER MACHADO, Ph.D.
ARCHBISHOP OF BENGALURU
ARCHBISHOP'S HOUSE
No.75, MILLERS' ROAD
BENSON TOWN POST OFFICE
BENGALURU-560 046
KARNATAKA
REPUBLIC OF INDIA
14 . FATHER BALRAJ R.
PARISH PRIEST
OF RESURRECTION CHURCH
80 FEET ROAD
SIR. C.V. RAMAN ROAD
INDIRA NAGAR LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 038
MOBILE No.9980164319
E MIAL ID: [email protected]
15 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
-
5
HOME DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
KARNATAKA
16 . DR. KURIEN
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
BY PROFESSION ALLEGEDLY
A MEDICAL DOCTOR
AND CARE OF THE RESPONDENT No.1
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. LAKSHMISH G., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R3 & R13;
SRI. B.A. BELLIAPPA, SPP-I WITH
SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R6 TO R10 & R15;
SRI. M.A. SEBASTIAN, ADVOCATE FOR R14;
SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR 11 & R12;
R4 & R5 ARE SERVED)
THIS WP(HC) IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 , BY THE PETITIONER, WHEREIN
HE PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO
(a) ISSUE A WRIT OF HABEUS CORPUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR
ORDER TO THE RESPONDENT Nos.1 TO 10, 13 AND 16 TO
PRODUCE THE SON OF THE PETITIONER NAMED MR. THOMA
DOMINIC TO THIS HON'BLE COURT ON A DAY SO FIXED BY IT
AND LET HIM DECIDE IF HE WANTS TO GO WITH THE
PETITIONER WHO IS HIS NATURAL MOTHER AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 12.02.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-
6
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, seeking for
issuance of a writ of habeus corpus to respondent nos.1 to
10, 13 and 16 to produce the son of the petitioner named
Mr. Thoma dominic before this Court and let him decide if he
wants to go with the petitioner, who is his natural mother.
2. Heard Shri. Jose Jacob Olekkenjil, learned
Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, Shri. Lakshmish G,
learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1, 3 and 13,
Shri. B.A. Belliappa, learned SPP-I along with Shri. M.V.
Anoop Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondents No.6 to 10 and 15, Shri. M.A.
Sebastian, learned counsel for respondent No.14 and Shri.
K.B.Monesh Kumar, learned counsel for the party
respondents No.11 and 12.
3. In the writ petition, it is contended that the
petitioner, a semi-literate and poverty-stricken woman from
Kerala, studied only up to 7th grade in a Malayalam-medium
Government School. At the age of 15, she was seduced by
–
7
one Lonappan alias John Matthew and became pregnant.
Subsequently, he abandoned her by placing her alone on a
train to Bengaluru. The petitioner gave birth to a healthy
son, named Master Thoma Dominic at St. Michael’s Convent
and Home, located in Indira Nagar Layout, Bengaluru, on
29.10.1984, at approximately about 11:30 am.
4. The baptism of the petitioner’s son was
performed by Reverend Father Simon Misquith in the chapel
of St. Michael’s Convent and was subsequently registered at
the Resurrection Church at Indira Nagar, Bangalore. The
petitioner later requested a baptism certificate from
respondent No.14 – the parish priest. It is submitted that
respondent No.14, however, refused to provide the baptism
certificate. The petitioner resided at St. Michael’s Convent
until her son was 4.5 years old, earning a livelihood by
working as a servant. During this time, her son won an
award for being the best-looking child in a local competition
organized by nearby churches. This event allegedly
motivated respondents No.2, 4 and 5 to kidnap her son and
hand him over to a Keralite couple – respondent No.16 and
–
8
his alleged wife without the consent of petitioner. It is
submitted that on 29.06.1989, the petitioner was forcibly
evicted from the Saint Michael’s Convent Home at Bengaluru
on 29.06.1989. Despite making several oral and written
complaints to the jurisdictional police from 29.06.1989 till
date, the petitioner received no relief.
5. It is contended by the petitioner that her son was
fraudulently adopted without her consent through forged
documents, in violation of her fundamental rights as a
mother. The Saint Michael’s Convent has been engaging in
fraudulent activities, including the creation of forged wills
and codicils probated in Courts, siphoning off Crores of
public funds and misappropriating lands and other assets.
The petitioner’s rights were disregarded and her son’s
adoption was facilitated through manipulation and deceit by
the respondents. It is also the contention of the petitioner
that the biological mother has a claim over her child,
irrespective of economic disparities.
6. It is also contended that the unlawful detention
and brainwashing of her son for 34 years constitute gross
–
9
violations of her and her son’s fundamental rights. The
petitioner submits that she was misled and defrauded by
several advocates while pursuing her son’s case. She alleges
that her forged signatures were used by the respondents
No.1 and 2 to fraudulently obtain an adoption order from the
Family Court at Bengaluru. She contends that any decree
obtained under such circumstances is void, as it was
procured through forgery and fraud.
7. It is contended that on 14.06.2024, respondent
Sister Alice informed the police that she had seen the
petitioner and her son, Thoma Dominic, residing at Saint
Michael’s Convent and Home. However, conflicting
statements from the respondents cast doubts on the
authenticity of records produced. It is stated that the
petitioner has faced mockery and ridicule from police
officers, including respondent No.9 – Police Inspector Harsh
P.C., who taunted her regarding her son’s well-being and
appearance. Hence, the present writ petition.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
has relied on the following decisions of the Apex Court:-
–
10
• Ranjit Singh v. The State of Pepsu (now Punjab)
reported in AIR 1959 SC 843;
• Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. The State of U.P. and
others reported in AIR 1964 SC 1625;
• K.D.Sharma v. Steel Authority of India reported in
(2008) 12 SCC 481;
• Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarath and Others
reported in (2011) Cri. LJ 2663;
• X v. The Principle Secretary, Health and Family
Welfare Department and another reported in 2022
Live Law (SC) 621;
• Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd.
reported in (1996) 5 SCC 550; and
• Sachidanad Pandey and another v. State of Bengal
and others reported in (1987) 2 SCC 295.
9. The learned HCGP appearing for the official
respondents submits that the petitioner has approached this
Court for the first time after an extraordinary delay of more
than three decades and that her contentions are totally
vague. It is submitted that at this distance of time, making
any meaningful investigation into the allegations raised by
the petitioner is virtually impossible. It is contended that the
Writ Petition is totally devoid of details and in the nature of
–
11
the vague allegations raised by the petitioner, it is not
possible for the Police to conduct any investigation at this
distance in time.
10. It is stated in the status report filed by the
learned HCGP that on the basis of the orders passed by this
Court, the statements of the writ petitioner as well as the
fourth respondent were recorded. The fourth respondent had
admitted that she knew the petitioner and the petitioner and
her child were staying in the St. Michael’s Convent. But it is
stated that she does not know the whereabouts of the
petitioner’s child and no information is available with her.
She also states that she does not know the 16th respondent
or any of the other persons referred in the Writ Petition.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the party
respondents would submit that the birth registers of the
year 1982-84 and the adoption register of the year 1988-90
do not contain any record of a birth or adoption as alleged
by the petitioner.
–
12
12. It is further contended that the petitioner’s
allegations are totally unsubstantiated and are made solely
to harass the respondents and the institution. The petitioner
is put to strict proof of the allegations. Additionally, the
respondents categorically deny any involvement or
knowledge of the alleged kidnapping of the petitioner’s son
from any place in the year 1989.
13. It is contended that the petitioner has failed to
provide credible evidence linking the respondents to the
alleged act of kidnapping or proving that she reported the
alleged incident to any authority since 1989. It is also
contended that the writ of habeas corpus is intended to
address instances of unlawful detention. In the present case,
the petitioner has neither demonstrated that the
respondents have unlawfully detained her son nor provided
evidence to support the claim that they have any knowledge
of his whereabouts. Mere assertions without proof are
insufficient to justify legal action or the issuance of the writ
sought by the petitioner.
–
13
14. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.14 that, respondent No.14 confirms
having responded to the petitioner’s request dated
30.11.2023 by stating that the baptism certificates of her
son, Thoma Dominic born on 29.10.1984, were not found in
the record book of the Church. He also clarifies that a
baptism certificate only confirms whether a person was
baptized in the Church. It does not contain information on
the present status or whereabouts of the baptized person.
Additionally, the accusation that respondent No.14 is liable
for punishment under the IPC is, misconceived.
15. It is also contended that he was not involved in
any of the transactions, contacts or allegations mentioned in
the writ petition. Having taken charge of Resurrection
Church, Indira Nagar, in the year 2019, respondent No.14
has never met the petitioner, her representative or her
alleged son. The petitioner’s false complaint and baseless
allegations appear to be an attempt to harass respondent
No.14.
–
14
16. The learned counsel appearing for the
respondents has relied on the following decisions of the
Apex Court:-
• Tridip Kumar Dingal and Others v. State of West
Bengal and Others reported in (2009) 1 SCC 768; and• State of Maharashtra v. Digambar reported in (1995)
4 SCC 683.
17. We have considered the contentions advanced on
either side. The contention of the petitioner is that she had
given birth to a baby boy on 29.10.1984 and was an inmate
of the Convent in question. While so, she contends that her
signature in blank papers were obtained and her child was
given in adoption some time in 1989.
18. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner
attempted to contend that the petitioner was in abject
penury and unable to approach the Court or the Police in
time, the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition reads
as follows:-
“I, ELISABETH THOMAS THOPPIL also known as
ELSIE daughter of late Mr. Thomas Thoppil & late Mrs.
–
15
Clara Thoppil, Christian, major by age, by profession a
former house servant and presently a small level Land
Lady having permanent residential address at 1st Floor
new #86 “THHYKIL THOPPIL CHATEAU”, IIIrd Cross
Road, 20 Feet Road, Geethanjali School Lay Out,
Kaggadasapura, K.R. Puram, C.V. Raman Nagar Post
Office, Bengaluru – 560093, Karnataka. E-MAIL id:
[email protected] Mobile # 9606509726 do
hereby affirm and state as follows:
I state that I am the petitioner herein and am well
conversant with the facts of 76 the case. The contents of
paragraph 1 to 76 in page #s 1 to 34 and “ANNEXURES A
to G” are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief.”
19. Further, the relevant pleadings in the Writ
Petition are as under:-
“17. The petitioner was residing at the Saint
Michael’s Convent Home till her son became about 4.5
years. And petitioner was suckling him with her servant’s
salary. So the new rudderless story spun by the
respondent # 1 to the archbishop /respondent # 13 is
against presumption laid down in section 114 of the
Indian Evidence Act 1872.
18. At this point in time the child won an award
being the best good looking child in a competition held
for children belonging to the nearby churches. This
winning catalysed the respondent #s 2,4 and 5 to kidnap
the petitioner’s son’s and give him to an alleged Keralite
–
16
couple/Respondent # 16 and his alleged wife without
permission of the petitioner and in stark contrast with
the consent of the petitioner required and in
contravention of sections 14,17,18,19 of the Indian
Contract Act, 1872 and even without an order from the
Family Court at Bengaluru.
19. Immediately, after son of the petitioner was
kidnapped and petitioner was ejected from Saint
Michael’s Convent Home at Bengaluru on 29.6.1989
without even an ex-parte order of the City Civil Court an
oral complaint was lodged by the petitioner to the
jurisdictional Station House Officer/S.H.O. and the Sub
Inspector of the Indira Nagar Police Station about the
kidnapping of the son of the petitioner and her ejectment
above mentioned in terms of section 154(1) Cr.P.C.
20. But the jurisdictional police did not reduce
her oral complaint to writing nor read it out to her and
take her signature as required by section 154 (1)
Cr.P.C.,1973 because of being bribed and influenced by
the respondent # 2 and others in terms of presumption
laid down in section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
21. From 29.6.1989 to date several oral
complaints, some written complaints were given to the
jurisdictional police and several personal visits to the
jurisdictional police station were made but to no avail.”
20. Thereafter, several complaints submitted before
the respondents No.6 to 13, are produced along with the
–
17
Writ Petition. It is pertinent to note that the earliest of such
complaints are dated 08.06.2022.
21. This Writ Petition (HC) is filed in the year 2022.
The details provided in the Writ Petition are totally vague. It
is pertinent to note that respondent No.16, who is alleged to
have taken the child in adoption has been identified in the
Writ Petition only by name and no address whatsoever of
the said person is forthcoming even in the cause-title of the
Writ Petition. We notice that though it is contended that the
complaints had been preferred by the petitioner before the
jurisdictional police, none of such complaints are produced
along with the Writ Petition. In the complaints produced
along with the Writ Petition, the allegations are essentially
totally vague and no details are forthcoming.
22. The contesting party respondents have filed
objections to the Writ Petition. The HCGP has also placed
available materials and status reports on record. We have
perused the same. While it may be true that the Writ
Petitioner has some manner of grievance, the Courts of Law
or the Police cannot aid her in the absence of proper
–
18
material. The petitioner has approached the Writ Court,
more than 32 years after the alleged incidents have
occurred. At this distance of time, requiring the police to
trace out a person or to investigate a crime without even the
bare necessary details is an impossible task.
23. From the materials placed on record by the
learned HCGP, it appears that the Police have made
enquiries with the party respondents and the St. Michael’s
Convent Home in respect of the complaint submitted by the
petitioner. The extract of register of all admissions made by
the St. Michael’s Convent Home for the year 1984 as well as
the extract from the register of all children given in adoption
by the St. Michaels Home for the year 1989 have been made
available to us along with the statement.
24. The first respondent has also filed an affidavit
stating that she does not know who respondent No.16 is.
The death certificates of respondents No.2 and 5 are also
placed on record. Though the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the death certificate produced is not
of respondent No.5, there is nothing to show that there was
–
19
a Gynecologist by name of Sister Ison in the care of the first
respondent at the relevant time.
25. With the pleadings as presently available, we are
of the opinion that requiring the police to do anything
further in the matter, would be an impossible exercise. We
are of the opinion that the prayers as sought for cannot be
granted. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
All the pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of.
The records which are made available by the learned
counsel appearing for respondents No.1, 3 and 13 shall be
returned on proper authorization and identification.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
cp*