Nadendla Mabunni Vs the State of Ap

NADENDLA MABUNNI, W/O.TANGUTURU MIRAVALLI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 2-1-703, SHIVALAYAM STREET, MAHESHWAR NAGAR, YARRAGUNTLA MANDAL, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KADAPA, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KADAPA, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶16

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, YARRAGUNTLA MANDAL, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶17

OTHURU CHINNA IMMAMULU, S/O. RASULLU SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶18

2

¶19

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.28554 of 2025

¶20

OTHURU DASTGIRAMMA, OTHURU CHINNA IMMAMULU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.

¶21

THE RESPONDENT NOS. 5 AND 6 ARE THE R/O. D.NO. 4/47, YERRIPALLI, ULIMELLA, PULIVENDULA, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 516390.

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.SINGARAJU MAHASWETHA VARMA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.K SRINIVAS

¶27

2.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

3

¶30

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.28554 of 2025

¶31

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

¶32

AND

¶33

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

¶34

WRIT PETITION No.28554 of 2025

¶35

O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

¶36

This writ petition for habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner, who is the mother of the corpus, seeking a direction to the respondents to produce the corpus, by name O. Rihana, who is a minor child aged about 4 years, before the Court and to deliver her custody to the petitioner.

¶37

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General, who is appearing for official respondent Nos.1 to 4 on the advance notice served on him, and Mr. K. Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6.

¶38

3. The petitioner is the mother of the corpus by name O. Rihana, who is a minor child aged about 4 years. The husband of the petitioner and the father of the corpus, by name O. Raja Saheb, passed away about four years back after the birth of the corpus. After his death, the petitioner married another person by name T. Miravalli on 20.07.2025

¶39

4

¶40

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.28554 of 2025

¶41

and since then, she has been living with him. The corpus who is a minor child is now in the custody of respondent Nos.5 and 6, who are the paternal grandparents of the child. According to the petitioner, there was an oral agreement between her and respondent Nos.5 and 6, who are the paternal grandparents of the minor child, that the minor child shall be in her custody for some time and in the custody of respondent Nos.5 and 6 for some time, but they are not giving the custody of her child to her and they are also not allowing her to see the child.

¶42

4. Learned counsel for appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6, on instructions, submits that there was a written agreement executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 to keep the minor child in their custody only and also agreeing that she will not claim for the custody of the minor child and in view of the said agreement executed by her in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6, the child is in the care and custody of the paternal grandparents. He further submits that it is not at all the case of the petitioner that the child was forcibly taken away from her custody so as to maintain this petition for habeas corpus.

¶43

5

¶44

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.28554 of 2025

¶45

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for official respondent Nos.1 to 4, on instructions, submits that it is purely a dispute relating to the custody rights of the minor child and as the child is now in the custody of the paternal grandparents, even though the petitioner has lodged a report with the police, they are not interfering in the said civil dispute and the petitioner has to work out her remedy in appropriate proceedings before the concerned civil court. He would also submit that as it is not the case of the petitioner that respondent Nos.5 and 6 have forcibly taken away the child from her custody or illegally confined her, this writ petition for habeas corpus is not maintainable.

¶46

6. Admittedly, after the death of the first husband of the petitioner and father of the minor child, the petitioner has contracted second marriage with one T. Miravalli on 20.07.2025 and she has been living with him. Further, admittedly, the minor child is now in the custody of respondent Nos.5 and 6, who are her paternal grandparents. Although the petitioner asserts that there was an oral agreement between her and respondent Nos.5 and 6 to the effect that the minor child has to be kept in her custody for some time and in the custody of respondent Nos.5 and 6 for some time, the said assertion is emphatically denied

¶47

6

¶48

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.28554 of 2025

¶49

by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6. As stated supra, he contends that there is a written agreement executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 agreeing to keep the child permanently in their custody and also agreeing that she will not make any claim for the custody of the child. Thus, there is a dispute with regard to the agreement alleged to have been entered into between the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6. Except a bald assertion made by the petitioner that there is an oral agreement to keep the child in her custody for some time, nothing has been placed on record to substantiate the said plea which is denied by respondent Nos.5 and 6. So, it is a disputed question of fact which requires evidence to adjudicate and resolve the same.

¶50

7. As the child is admittedly in the custody of respondent Nos.5 and 6 and it is not at all the case of the petitioner that respondent Nos.5 and 6 have forcibly taken away the child from her lawful custody and illegally confined her, the writ petition for habeas corpus is not maintainable as per settled law. If the petitioner intends to have the custody of minor child and if she is so entitled, she has to pursue her remedy by way of initiating appropriate proceedings before the competent forum for redressal of her grievance. As rightly contended

¶51

7

¶52

CMR,J & GTK,J W.P.No.28554 of 2025

¶53

by both the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for official respondents and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, when it is not the case of the petitioner that the child was forcibly taken away from her custody or is illegally confined, the writ petition for habeas corpus is not maintainable. Even in the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari¹ , it is clearly held that a writ petition for habeas corpus relating to custody of minor child is maintainable only when the detention of the child by a parent or others is illegal and without any authority of law. In the case on hand, as the child is in the custody of the paternal grandparents and as it is stated by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that she is in their safe custody, it cannot be said that her custody is illegal for the purpose of entertaining this writ petition for habeas corpus.

¶54

8. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent Court of law and initiate appropriate proceedings for redressal of her grievance regarding custody of the minor child. In the event the petitioner approaches the competent Court to seek custody of the minor child,

¶55