Lakkoju Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

Lakkoju Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of habeas corpus should issue directing the respondents to produce the petitioner's two minor children (Lakkoju Lishant Naga Surya and Lakkoju Banvika Surya Sri), said to be in the custody of their maternal grandparents (respondents 4 and 5), and hand over their custody to the petitioner.

Court's answer

In view of disputed questions of fact and the peculiar circumstance of the murder of the children's mother, it was not appropriate for this Court to arrive at any conclusion as to what would be beneficial for the children.

Ratio / Principle

The welfare of the children comes first, and not the priority or the interests of the parents or their relatives.

Key takeaways

The custody question should be decided by an appropriate Court which can examine the factual aspects and determine what would be good for the children and whether it would be safe to give custody of the children to the petitioner.ratio¶67
The Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail of his remedies under law, with no order as to costs.ratio¶68

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas corpus writ petition (Art. 226) by a father, Lakkoju Srinivasa Rao, seeking production and custody of his two minor children, Lakkoju Lishant Naga Surya and Lakkoju Banvika Surya Sri, alleged to have been taken by their maternal grandparents (respondents 4 and 5) after the mother's death on 28.04.2024; petitioner alleged the grandparents had agreed to return custody upon transfer of properties to the children and that the epileptic children were not receiving medical care. Respondents 4 and 5 countered that their daughter was murdered by the petitioner's family members and denied any such agreement. Per R. Raghunandan Rao, J., the Court found disputed questions of fact and, given the murder of the mother, declined to decide custody, reiterating that the welfare of the children comes first and not the priority or interests of parents or relatives, and that the issue should be decided by an appropriate Court after examining the factual aspects. Writ Petition dismissed; petitioner left free to avail of remedies under law; no costs.

I g

APHC010100962025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

AND

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

WRIT PETITION NO: 5160 OF 2025

Between:

Lakkoju Srinivasa Rao„ S/o. Kesava Rao, Aged about 35 years, R/o. D.No.1-1, Jagannadhapuram Village, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District

...Petitioner

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, A.P. Secretariat at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District

The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District, Bhimavaram

The Station House Officer, Tadepalligudem Rural Police Station West Godavari District

Meduri Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Seshacharyulu, Aged about 55 years, R/o. H.No.55-40-72, Housing Board Colony, Simhadripuram, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam City

Smt Meduri Kumari, W/o. Meduri Srinivasa Rao, Aged about 46 years. R/o. H.No.55-40-72, Housing Board Colony, Simhadripuram, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam City

...Respondents

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

«r

pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the Respondents to produce the mnor Children, namely Lakkoju Lishant Naga Surya and Lakkoju Banvika Surya Sri, before this Honourable Court and handover their custody to^me.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PRASAD ALAPATI

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5: SRI K RAMBABU

The Court made the following order:

[3541]

APHC010100962025

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

MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

WRIT PETITION NO; 5160/2025

Between:

1.LAKKOJU SRINIVASA RAO,, S/0. KESAVA RAO, AGED ABOUT³⁵ YEARS, R/0. D.NO.1-1 JAGANNADHAPURAM VILLAGE TADEPALLIGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT

...PETITIONER

AND

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

2.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM

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

4.MEDURI SRINIVASA RAO, S/0. SESHACHARYULU, AGED^ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/0. H.NO.55-40-72 HOUSING BOARD COLONY, SIMHADRIPURAM, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY

5.SMT MEDURI KUMARI, W/O. MEDURI SRINIVASA RAO AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/0. H.NO.55-40-72 HOUSING BOARD COLONY, SIMHADRIPURAM, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY

2

RRR, J&JSJ W.P.No.5160of 2025 *

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 an appropriate Writ,^{orderordirection} mostly one which is in the nature of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the Respondents to produce the Minor Children, namely Lakkoju^Lishant Naga Surya and Lakkoju Banvika Surya Sri, before this Honourable^Courtand handover their custody to me and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

PRASAD ALAPATl

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

V SATYANARAYANA NEKKANTI

2.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

3

RRR, J&JS,J W.P.No.5160of2025

The Court made the following order: (perHon’ble Sh^{JusticeR.RaghunandanRao)}

The petitioner herein has moved the present Writ Petition^{foradirection} to the respondents to produce his two children, who^aresaidto be in the custody of his father-in-law and mother-in-law (who are arrayed as respondents 4 & 5 in the present Writ Petition).

The case of the petitioner is that his wife had died under mysterious circumstance on 28.04.2024, when he was in Saudi Arabia and that he had returned immediately on 30.04.2024. By this time, both his children are said to have been taken away by their maternal grandparents. The petitioner, in fact contends that, they were forcibly taken away by respondents 4 & 5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that certain properties had also been transferred in the^{nameofthechildren} to assure the respondents 4 & 5 that proper care would^betaken in relation to the children and that the children can be returned to the custody of the petitioner. It is further alleged that the properties^{were transferred solely onthe} ground that the respondents 4 & 5 had agreed to handover^{thecustodyofthe} children on such property being registered in the name of the children to safegaurd their financial security. The learned counsel^{alsocontendsthatboth} the petitioner’s children suffer from epilepsy and require constant medical care, vyhich is not being given to them.

4

RRR, J&JS,J W.P.No.5160of2025

The respondents 4 & 5 have filed a counter affidavit stating that their daughter, who was their only child, was murdered by the family members of the petitioner and that the petitioner was also complicit in the said homicide. »■ The respondents 4 & 5 have not indicated anywhere that they had agreed for handing over the custody of the children, on execution of immovable property in the name of the children.

Heard Sri Alapati Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner^and Sri K. Rambabu, learned counsel appearing for respondents^4&5.

In view of the fact that there are disputed questions^offactand taking the peculiar circumtances of this case, namely^{themurderofthemother} of the children, it would not be appropriate for this Court to arrive at any conclusion as to what would be beneficial for the children. It is settled law that it is the welfare of the children that comes first, and not the priority or the interests of the parents or their relatives.

In this case, it would only be appropriate that the^issue is taken up before an appropriate Court, which can go into the factual aspects and arrive at a decision as to what would be good for the children and whether it would be safe to give custody of the children to the petitioner herein.

In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail of his remedies under law. There shall be no order as to costs.

/

5

‘>K

RRR, J&JSJ W.P.No.5160 of 2025

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

closed.

Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to Sri. Prasad Alapati Advocate [OPUC]

One CC to Sri. V Satyanarayana Nekkanti Advocate [OPUC]

One CC to Sri. K Rambabu Advocate [OPUC]

Two CCs to The Advocate General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

Two CD Copies GSC

HIGH COURT DATED: 14/07/2025

ORDER WP NO. 5160 OF 2025

h.
Co '
^2 8 JUL 2025
^M^^jrrent SectjOjj..^^^

DISMISSING THE WP

WITHOUT COSTS