Akkaramani Yamini Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Akkaramani Chandra Sekhar, S/o. Late A.Apparao, Aged around 36 years, R/o. Near 3 Ammavarlu Temple, Sangivalasa, Bheemili, Visakhapatnam District Andhra Pradesh - 523001.

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

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. 1 to 3 herein to

¶18

/■

¶19

Geetansh, aged around 3 years Minor Child Master the Petitioner produce illegal custody of the is Hon'ble Court from the and 8 months before this the custody of the Minor and consequently hand over Respondents No. 4 his mother and the the Petitioner herein being child Master Geetansh, to natural guardian.

¶20

IA Kin . 1 OF 2025

¶21

in the circumstances stated 151 CPC praying that in Petition under Section the High Court may be pleased to in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, Affidavit to the counter filed herein to file a Reply grant leave to the Petitioner by Respondent to the Writ Petition.

¶22

; M/s. CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Petitioner ; THE ADVOCATE GENERAL the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 ; Counsel for ; SRI SHAIK ALTAF Counsel for the Respondent No.4

¶23

The Court made the following order;

¶24

[3529]

¶25

APHC010109112025

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 5460/2025

¶32

Between:

¶33

1.AKKARAMANI YAMINI, W/0 A.CHANDRASEKHAR, AGED ABOUT²⁷ YEARS R/O.D.NO. 5-22, GOLLALAPALEM, T. NAGARAPALEM, BHEEMINUPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM-531162.

¶34

...PETITIONER

¶35

AND

¶36

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

¶37

2.THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, COMMISSIONERATE, SURYABAGH, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶38

3.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BHEEMUNIPATNAM POLICE STATION VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT

¶39

4.AKKARAMANI CHANDRA SEKHAR, S/0 LATE A.APPARAO, AGED AROUND 36 YEARS, R/0 NEAR 3 AMMAVARLU TEMPLE, SANGIVALASA, BHEEMILI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH - 523001

¶40

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶41

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^{moreparticularlyonein} the nature of the Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the Respondents No. 1 to 3

¶42

2

¶43

herein to produce the Petitioner Minor Child Master^{Geetansh,agedaround3} years and 8 months before this Hon'ble Court from the^{illegalcustodyofthe} Respondents No. 4 and consequently hand over the custody of the Minor child Master Geetansh, to the Petitioner herein being his mother and the natural guardian and pass

¶44

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶45

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant leave to the Petitioner herein to^file a Reply Affidavit to the counter filed by Respondent to the Writ Petition and^pass

¶46

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶47

1.CKR ASSOCIATES

¶48

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶49

1 .THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶50

2.SHA1KALTAF

¶51

3

¶52

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

¶53

The petitioner herein has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition, for the grant of custody of her son, who is said to be aged four years and 1 month.

¶54

The case of the petitioner is that she was married to the respondent and had suffered at the hands of the 4*^ respondent and his mother due to the physical torture inflicted on her and her son by the 4 th respondent and his mother. 3. The petitioner contends that she had been assaulted on 30.12.2023 and consumed a large number of tablets due to which she lost consciousness and subsequently moved to her maternal home, on 01.01.2024, along with her son. She contends that on 22.04.2024, the 4*'^ respondent had forcibly taken away her son and that^{herfatherhadtakenhis} own life, on 25.12.2024, leaving behind a written note, attributing. This extreme step to the persistent harassment by the family of the 4*'^ respondent and that a Crime No.9 of 2025, had also been registered with the Bheemunipatnam Police Station, in this regard.

¶55

The petitioner has now approached this Court, in Feburary-2025 contending that her son had been forcibly taken away^{fromherandthatthe} custody of the 4*'^ respondent over the said child is illegal custody which needs to be set aside and that her son should be restored to her.

¶56

The 4^^ respondent has filed a counter affidavit, denying^allthese allegations and stating that the entire dispute arose^{becauseoftheinsistence} of the petitioner that he should stay away from his^mother.

¶57

Both parties had also attempted mediation for resolving their disputes. However, the said mediation conducted by^{atrainedmediatordid} not result in a resolution of the dispute.

¶58

4

¶59

%

¶60

This Court, on account of the delay in filing the Writ^Petition, is not in a position to ascertain the true facts as to whether the child was forcibly taken away by the 4*^^ respondent. A finding in this connection can only be only given by an appropriate Court of civil jurisdiction or Family Court. Apart from that, the photographs produced by the 4^'' respondent as well as the documents show that the child has been joined in a school. The question of whether proper care is being taken of the child or not, is an issue which would have to be gone into by an appropriate Court of civil jurisdiction.

¶61

In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion^infavourof either the petitioner or the 4^'^ respondent, it would be appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition giving liberty to the petitioner to approach an appropriate Court of competent jurisdiction to go into the question of the custody of the son of the petitioner and the 4*'^ respondent. 9. The 4*'' respondent had already stated that he has no objection to the petitioner visiting his house to interact with the child. In such circumstances, such visitation rights can be continued subject to any Order that may be passed by the Court of civil jurisdiction as and when any application in this regard is made. It is further clarified that said Court would not be bound by any observation or directions given by this Court in this Order.

¶62