Disposed

Tummeda Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Raju v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Nov 2024WP/6050/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A father sought a writ of habeas corpus for production of his daughter held by his estranged wife whose address was unknown. The wife and child were produced once; the court declined to trace her address, closed the writ petition without costs, leaving the petitioner free to seek custody or visitation rights through the Family Court.

What the court decided

AI extract

Tummeda Veera Venkata Satyanarayana… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

APHC010117762024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

[3508]

¶4

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 6050/2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Tummeda Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Raju

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶13

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶15

1.MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶17

1.KOTHA NAGA SURYA RAO

¶18

2.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL (AP)

¶19

The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

¶20

The petitioner herein has moved this Court seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus for production of his daughter who is in the custody of his wife, namely the 5^th respondent.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that the 5^th respondent had left the company of the petitioner in the year-2020 and has ensured that her whereabouts were not known to the petitioner. The petitioner submits that he

¶22

is interested in the welfare of the daughter and the 5^th respondent has

¶23

¶24

deliberately hidden herself and their daughter only to ensure that the petitioner does not have any connection to the daughter.

¶25

Upon direction, the 3^rd respondent, had produced the 5^th respondent and the child before this Court, on 13.08.2024. The 5^th respondent stated that she was presently living in Hyderabad along with her child and had left the company of the petitioner on account of his ill-treatment. This contention was denied and disputed by the petitioner

¶26

The 5^th respondent had also taken the assistance of a legal aid counsel. Sri Kotha Naga Surya Rao, learned counsel for the 5^th respondent submits that he is unaware of her whereabouts except that she had contacted him once or twice for giving instructions in the case.

¶27

Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is desirous to move the Family Court for custody/visitation right with the child and he is unable to take such steps on account of the fact that the address of the 5^th respondent is not known.

¶28

While the petitioner has a right to agitate his rights as a parent and seek custody of his daughter, this Court cannot be brought into this question of finding the address of the 5^th respondent. That is the task of the petitioner herein.

¶29

In view of the aforesaid facts, this Writ Petition is closed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail of his rights, remedy and taking steps for tracing out the 5^th respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

¶31

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand

¶32

closed.

¶33

_______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶34

______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J

¶35

BSM

¶36

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶38

AND

¶39

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶40

WRIT PETITION No.6050 of 2024

¶41

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)

¶42

19.11.2024

¶43

BSM

Tummeda Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Raju v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Tummeda Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Raju v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muchu Venkateswara Rao, Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

Gandikota Rajesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Ramisetty Lingamma, Vs Smt.Ramisetty Alivelu Manga Tayaru

V.Krishna Murthy, Vs Mr.B.Raja Sekhar

N v Varshit Goud Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

C H Jhansi Achary Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh