Disposed¶34

Moganti Ganesh Lakshmana Kumar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 May 2026WP/9625/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AP High Court Amaravati, WP 9625/2026, decided 04.05.2026, Dr Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao. Petitioner Moganti Ganesh Lakshmana Kumar sought mandamus against alleged harassment by Inspector of Police (Disha Police Station, Krishna District / Machilipatnam) who summoned him over PGRS complaint lodged by wife Chinta Sri Bhavani. Disposed with directions to police: no interference in matrimonial disputes, no harassment without due process of law. No costs. No statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the respondent police not to interfere in the matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and his wife and not to harass the petitioner without following due process of law; writ petition disposed of, with no order as to costs. ¶34

Moganti Ganesh Lakshmana Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APHC010191672026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3521]

¶5

MONDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 9625/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

MOGANTI GANESH LAKSHMANA KUMAR, S/O. VENKATA RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT H.NO. 19/409, CIRCARTHOTA, CHILAKALAPUDI, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI.

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM.

¶15

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KRISHNA DISTRICT, MACHILIPATNAM.

¶16

SRI VASA VENKATESWARA RAO, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISHA POLICE STATION, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶17

CHINTA SRI BHAVANI, D/O CHINTA SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. OCCUPATION DENTAL SURGEON, R/O AYODHYA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA 520003

¶18

¶19

KOLLU RAMESH, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC POLITICIAN(EX-CORPORATOR) R/O SITICABLE OFFICE, GANDHI NAGAR, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.M SOLOMON RAJU

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR HOME

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶26

The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief:

¶27

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 in harassing the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents not to harass the petitioner …”

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for Petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader.

¶29

Mr. M. Solomon Raju, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner and Respondent No.5 are husband and wife. The Petitioner has been called to the police station by Respondent No.4 and has been subjected to harassment.

¶30

Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that Respondent No.5 has submitted a PGRS complaint

¶31

¶32

against her husband, and in that connection only, the Petitioner was called to the police station.

¶33

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Respondent Police not to interfere in the matrimonial disputes between the Petitioner and his wife, and not to harass the Petitioner without following due process of law.

¶34