Annapureddy Indira Revati Vs the State of Ap

ANNAPUREDDY INDIRA REVATI, W/O AMAR BABU, D/O SIVA NAGESWARA RAO, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, HINDU, R/O D.NO. 1-127, NEAR SARADA VIDYANIKETAN, PEDDA KALLEPALLI, MOPIDEVI, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, A P SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI,GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE CHAIRMAN, THE STATE COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD FLIGHTS, VIJAYAWADA, N.TR. DISTRICT. A.P.

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT, MACHILIPATNAM.

¶15

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶16

ANNAPUREDDY AMAR BABU, S/A LATE ANKAMMA RAO, AGED

¶17

::2::

¶18

ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, HINDU. R/O D.NO. 19-3-25, KOTHAPETA, BHAVANARUSHI NAGAR, SATTENAPALLI GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

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 direction, cm order. or a writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent Nos 2 to 4 to protection of child rights of the petitioner children and life and liberty, enjoyment of rights of children affected by domestic violence as illegal and unconstitutional and against well settled principles of law and consequently direct the respondents particularly 2 nd and 4th respondents herein to protect the child rights as per G.O.Ms.No. 34 of Department for Women.Children.Disabled and Senior Citizens, dated 04-12-2012, and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.BATTULA SANJAIAH GANDHI

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE(AP)

¶25

::3::

¶26

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶27

W.P.No.2989 of 2024

¶28

This Court made the following

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein being a woman and wife of the 5^th Respondent submitted a representation to the 4^th Respondent herein for providing protection under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and also requesting custody of the minor male child blessed out of wedlock between the petitioner and 5^th Respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner already invoked the appropriate jurisdiction under the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking custody of the minor male child and the same is pending for consideration before the Court below. Even though the petitioner submitted representation and the same is acknowledged by the 4^th Respondent on 01.07.2023, so far the 4^th respondent neither protected the petitioner from harassment by the 5^th Respondent nor handed over the custody of the minor male child who was in illegal custody of the 5^th Respondent. Hence the writ petition.

¶31

::4::

¶32

2. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for the 4^th Respondent submits that the representation of the petitioner for initiating action under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is not under the jurisdiction of the 4^th Respondent. Any violence as defined under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 should be clarified by the police authorities concerned and the petitioner can submit a complaint before concerned police or before concerned Court for getting appropriate relief, but certainly not before the 4^th Respondent. He further submits that as far as handing over of the minor male child in favour of the petitioner is concerned, the said request or prayer of the petitioner cannot be considered by the 4^th Respondent since it is not within its jurisdiction to decide the custody rights of the minor male child between the petitioner and her husband i.e., the 5^th Respondent herein. Since the OP under the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is pending, which was filed by the petitioner before the Court below, which is competent Court to decide the rights of the petitioner as well as the 5^th Respondent in respect of the custody of the male minor child, the 4^th Respondent has no jurisdiction to decide the same. In view of settled law as narrated above, and the prayer in this Writ Petition praying disposal of the representation of the petitioner by the 4^th

¶33

::5::

¶34

Respondent is not possible and out of the since the representation itself is not within jurisdiction of the 4^th Respondent.

¶35

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare and perused the material placed on record.

¶36

4. The relief claimed by the petitioner herein is not amenable to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for the reason that the custody rights relating to a minor male child shall be decided competent Civil Court of Law as per the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. More over, these proceedings required detailed enquiry, evidence and by considering other factors the same can be decided by the competent Court after having trial but not under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. In view of family disputes between the petitioner and 5^th Respondent herein, who is none other than the natural guardian and father of the minor male child as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner and since the petitioner already invoked the jurisdiction of competent Court to decide the custody rights of the minor male child between the petitioner and the 5^th Respondent, the petitioner should have wait till the orders of the competent Court and the said grievance cannot be redressed by any other way except by the competent Civil Court. As contended by

¶37

::6::

¶38

learned Government Pleader that the 4^th Respondent cannot act as Quasi-Judicial Authority in respect of complaint of domestic violence as well as handing over of custody of the minor male child is valid and merit submission. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for redressal of her grievance by requesting expeditious disposal of the custody petition before the Court below.

¶39

5. In view of the reasons stated as above, the present Writ Petition lacks jurisdiction either under extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court as well as before the 4^th Respondent herein who has no jurisdiction to redress the grievance of the petitioner as pleaded.

¶40

6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is not maintainable and same is dismissed. No costs.

¶41

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶42

_________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

¶43

DT: 17.03.2026 krk

¶44

::7::

¶45

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA