Nandam Kamala Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION/HDME DEPARTMENT, 1ST BLOCK, 1 FLOOR, INTERIM GOVERNMENT COMPLEX, A.P. SECRETARIAT OFFICE, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522503.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, N.T.R POLICE COMMISSIONERATE VIAJAYAWADA, N.T.R DISTRICT.

¶15

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT BHIMAVARAM.

¶16

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PENAMALURU POLICE STATION, N.T.R DISTRICT.

¶17

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TADEPALLIGUDEM RURAL POLICE STATION, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶18

SRI PARVATHAM SRIRAMA CHANDRA MURTHY, S/O. NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, D.NO.1-81 ,NEAR MPL MAIN SCHOOL, JAGANNADHAPURAM, WEST GODAVARI

¶19

2

¶20

DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-534145.

¶21

SRI PARVATAM CHINA VENKATA RAO, S/O. ACHAYYA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, D.NO.1-81, NEAR MPL MAIN SCHOOL,JAGANNADHAPURAM,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-53414

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

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 tomay be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the official Respondents herein to produce my nephew i.e. Parvatham Venkata Satya Sai Ram, S/o. Late Gangadhara Rao before this Honble Court and handover the custody of nephew to me as per order of Honble XIV Additional District and Session Judge cum Addl. Family Judge, Vijayawada in M.H.O.P.No.20/2024 and pass such

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the respondents to produce my nephew i.e. Parvatham Venkata Satya Sai Ram, S/o. Late Gangadhara Rao and pass such

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶27

1.TURAGA SAI SURYA

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.V SATYANARAYANA NEKKANTI

¶30

2.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶31

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

¶32

The alleged detenue is the nephew of the petitioner herein. He is the

¶33

son of the younger sister of the petitioner. It is stated that the father and mother of the alleged detenue had passed away and the petitioner had been appointed as the guardian of the detenue, by way of an order dated

¶34

3

¶35

27.12.2024 in M.H.O.P.No.20 of 2024 under the provisions of Section 50 & 54 of the Mental Health Act, 1987. It is stated that the detenue is mentally ill and is unable to take care of himself.

¶36

Petitioner has now approached this Court contending that respondent Nos.6 & 7, who are the paternal grandfather and the brother of the paternal grandfather had forcibly taken away the detenue from the house of the petitioner, in the second week of June, 2025 and that the whereabouts of the detenue have been hidden by respondent Nos.6 & 7. It is contended that the custody of respondent Nos.6 & 7, over the detenue, is illegal inasmuch as the petitioner had been appointed as the guardian of the detenue.

¶37

Respondent Nos.6 & 7 have filed their counter. In this Counter it is stated that petitioner has obtained the order of guardianship, without impleading them and behind their back. It is further stated that the petitioner and her husband have obtained these orders solely for the purpose of taking over the properties of the detenue. Respondent Nos.6 & 7 contend that the detenue was being ill treated and they had to ensure that he is treated properly on account of which the detenue is residing with them.

¶38

Respondent Nos.6 & 7, deny the allegations that they had forcibly taken away the detenue from the custody of the petitioner. It is their contention that the detenue had been residing with them, since the demise of his mother and that the detenue was visiting the petitioner’s home occasionally.

¶39

4

¶40

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 & 7 would also submit that respondent Nos.6 & 7 have now filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside the order of appointment of the petitioner as guardian dated 27.12.2024 by the XIV Additional District & Sessions Judge cum Additional Family Judge, Vijayawada, and the same is pending consideration.

¶41

The petitioner, in view of the order dated 27.12.2024 passed by the XIV Additional District & Sessions Judge cum Additional Family Judge, Vijayawada, is the legal guardian of the detenue and she would be entitled to custody of the detenue. In the normal circumstances, this Court would have no hesitation in allowing the writ petition on this short ground. However, the fact remains that the detenue is a mentally ill person, who requires constant care and protection and there is every need to ascertain whether the interests of the detenue would be best served with the petitioner or with respondent Nos.6 & 7. These issues would best be dealt with by the Family Court. As the application, for setting aside the order, dated 27.12.2024, has already been filed by the respondents, it would be appropriate to dispose of the writ petition leaving it open to respondent Nos.6 & 7 to pursuing their application for setting aside the order dated 27.12.2024. While considering such application and the condone delay petition, if any, the Family Court shall also take into account the best interest of the detenue. Pending disposal of the said applications, the petitioner shall be entitled to visitation rights wherein the petitioner can visit and interact with the detenue, on every Sunday at 11.00 AM for one hour at the house of respondent No.7. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

5

¶43

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

¶44

closed.

¶45

_____________________________ JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶46

_____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

¶47

Date: 18^th August, 2025 RKS

Nandam Kamala v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandam Kamala v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Vijay Gopal Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corp. Ltd., & Another

G. Venkateswara Rao, Vs The Principal District Judge

M/s. Brothers Engineering and Errectors Limited, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Mahitha Vs The High Court of Andhra Pradesh

The Project Director Vs the District Collector Cum Arbitrator

National Highway Authority of India Vs M Reddappa