Boddapati Prathyusha v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Aug 2025WP/10399/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

habeas corpus; minor child custody; writ petition maintainability; alternative remedy bar; guardianship petition; Section 13(B) Hindu Marriage Act; divorce by mutual consent; video call access to child; Article 226 Constitution of India; Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati; Boddapati Prathyusha v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Veeturi Sri Harsha; W.P. No. 10399 of 2025; disposed without costs; liberty to pursue remedies under law.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the petitioner is left open to pursue appropriate remedies under law, with no order as to costs. ¶¶70

Boddapati Prathyusha Vs the State of Andhra… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; the petitioner is left open to pursue appropriate remedies under law, with no order as to costs.

¶¶70

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner can maintain this writ petition seeking production and custody of the minor child, when she has, after the filing of this writ petition, moved a petition to be appointed as guardian of both the children, i.e., whether the alternative remedy invoked precludes the writ petition.

¶¶68

Court's answer

The petitioner, having moved a petition to be appointed as guardian for both the children after the filing of this writ petition, cannot seek to maintain this writ petition in view of the alternative remedy that has been invoked; the Court finds considerable merit in that submission.

¶¶69

Ratio / Principle

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies under law; there shall be no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶¶70

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (W.P. No. 10399 of 2025), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, decided 12.08.2025; order per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, sitting with Hon'ble Sri Justice T.C.D. Sekhar. The petitioner-mother sought a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution directing official respondents to produce her minor son (aged about 6 years and 7 months) from the custody of respondent No. 6, the father, and hand over custody to her as natural guardian. The parties had divorced by mutual consent under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court Cum IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, granted on 10.07.2024, with a settlement that the son remain with the father, the daughter with the mother, and Sunday video calls for contact. The petitioner alleged the father stopped taking her calls since 16.02.2025; on 05.08.2025 the father agreed to a video-call arrangement, recorded by the Court, and the video call took place pursuant to this Court's order. Held: since the petitioner had, after filing this writ petition, moved a petition for appointment as guardian of both children, the writ petition could not be maintained in view of the alternative remedy invoked; the writ petition was accordingly disposed of, leaving the petitioner free to pursue appropriate remedies under law, with no order as to costs.

¶1

APHC010206792025

¶2

SM0 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

j
|E
o

¶4

TUESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 10399 OF 2Q2fi

¶8

Between:

¶9

Boddapati Prathyusha, D/o. B. Suryanarayana, Aged about 35 years, R/o Flat no-204. Vinayaka Avenues Mamatha Colony, 2 nd street, Konthamuru, Rajamahendravaram.

¶10

...petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary Department of Home, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶13

Union of India through Secretary to the Govt, of India Ministry of

¶14

External Affairs, South Block, New Delhi-110001

¶15

Bureau of Immigration in India at East Block VIII,^L Level-V, Sector-1 R-K. Puram, New Delhi.

¶16

The Superintendent of Police Rajamahendravaram District

¶17

The Station House Officer, Prakasah Nagar Police Station.

¶18

Rajahmundry.

¶19

Veeturi Sri Harsha, S/o VW Satyanarayana, Aged about 39 years, R/o

¶20

D.No. 59-8-18/2, G-3, Indira Heights, P and T Colony,

¶21

Sarangadharametta Rajamahendravaram Urban Presently residing

¶22

¶23

in 1218, Hidden Rdg Apt 2068 Irving Texas 75038-4481 Ph no +1 - *469 655 3318

¶24

...RESPONDENTS

¶25

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly^{oneinthenature} of the writ of HABEAS CORPUS directing the Respondents No. 4 and 5 herein to produce the Petitioner Minor Child Master Veeturi Sanjay Srinivas, aged around 6 years and 7 months, before this Hon'ble Court from the illegal custody of the Respondent No. 6 and consequently hand over the custody of the Minor child Master Veeturi Sanjay Srinivas to the Petitioner herein being his mother and the natural guardian.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIK ASIF

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,4 & 5:THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI PASALA PONNA RAO,

¶28

DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI MATHUKUMILLI SRI VIJAY The Court made the following order:

APHC010206792025

SfflB SS^ir;

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

¶34

[3529]

¶35

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶36

PRESENT

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶38

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

¶39

WRIT PETITION NO: 10399/2025

¶40

Between:

¶41

-I.BODDAPATI PRATHYUSHA, d/0 b suryanarayana, aged about 35 YEARS, R/0 FLAT NO. 204, VINAYAKA AVENUES mamatha colony 2ND STREET. KONTHAMURU RAJAMAHEND RAVARAM.

¶42

...PETITIONER

¶43

AND

¶44

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶45

2,UNI0N of INDIA THROUGH, SECRETARY TO THE GOVT, OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001

¶46

bureau of immigration in INDIA at EAST BLOCKVIll,^LEVEL-V, SECTOR-1, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI.

¶47

4.the superintendent of police, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM district

¶48

5.the station house officer, prakasah nagar police station, rajahmundry.

¶49

6.VEETURI SRI HARSHA, S/0 VWSATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/0 D.NO. 59-8-18/2, G-3, INDIRA HEIGHTS. P AND T

¶50

¶51

RRR,J & TCDSJ . W.P.No.10399 of 2025

¶52

URRAr' ^®^R^^gadharametta, rajamahendravaram IRVINir VcYrf^^^^*"^ residing in 1218, HIDDEN RDG APT²⁰⁶⁸ IRVING TEXAS 75038-4481 PH NO 1 -469 655 3318

¶53

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶54

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to Issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one In Ind 5 hL Respondents No 4 thT ln r® , T""/ ® ^ Plee'ble Court frL custodfonhe m’' P°"9ent No. 6and consequently hand^overthe herlir I h S^^^s to the Petitioner herein being his mother and the natural guardian and pass

¶55

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶56

I.SHAIK ASIF

¶57

Counsel for the Respondent{S);

¶58

1.SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI

¶59

2.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶60

¶61

¶62

RRRJ & TCDS,J W.P. No.10399 of 2025

¶63

Order; (perHon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The Court made the following , before this Court, was that, she was earlier The case of the petitioner children namely a son and a married to the 6 respondent and they had two daughter, born on 14.07.2018 and 08.10.2021 respectively. Due to marital th respondent had approached the learned disputes, the petitioner and the 6 ict and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Family Court Cum IX Additional District of the Hindu Marriage Act, for the Rajamahendravaram, under Section 13 (B) granted, on dissolution of their marriage by a mutual consent. The same was is said to be dissolved. 10.07.2024 when the marriage is

¶64

settlement, the son would also states that as per the 2. The petitioner the daughter would remain with the remain with the respondent, while that both sides could make video calls, on every petitioner. It was also agreed custody of the other former Sunday, in order to talk to the child, who is in the spouse.

¶65

this Court with the contention that, 3. The petitioner has now approached 16.02.2025 and was not the 6 respondent had stopped taking her calls since permitting her to talk with her son.

¶66

th represented by Sri Mathukumilli 4. The 6 respondent, who is now make arrangements to the petitioner learned counsel, had agreed to Sri Vijay 05.08.2025. was recorded by us, on to talk with her son and the same

¶67

¶68

RRR,J & TCDSJ 5. W.P.No.10399 of 2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to the Orders of this Court, dated 05.08,2025 the petitioner was able to interact with her son, by way of a video call. 6. Sri Mathukumilli Sn Vijay, learned counsel would submit that, the petitioner having moved a petition, to be appointed as the guardian, for both the children, after the filing of this Writ Petition cannot seek to maintain this Writ Petition in view of the alternative remedy that has been invoked.

¶69

We find considerable merit in the said submission.

¶70

Accordingly, this Writ Petition ISi disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies under Law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶71

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶72

Sd/-N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶73

To,

¶74

SECTION OFFICER

¶75