The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a father seeking habeas corpus to produce his minor children. The Court held that enforcing orders from a Domestic Violence case is not a proper subject for a writ of habeas corpus and is liable to be dismissed in limine.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE
PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD
W.P.No.22523 of 2012
Between:
Shaik Saibee, W/o Srinivasarao
.Petitioner
And
State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary for Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 6 others.
.. Respondents
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD
W.P.No.22523 of 2012
ORDER:
(Per. Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V.Ramana)
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing respondents 1 to 5 to produce the petitioner’s minor children namely Hanisha, aged 6 years, and Khadeer Hussain, aged 2 ½ years, who have been in the illegal custody of the 7th respondent, before this Court and to set them at liberty.
This case has a chequered history. The marriage of the petitioner and the 7th respondent was performed on 23.05.2004 and they got two children out of the wedlock. However, disputes arose between them and they fell apart. Subsequently, the petitioner filed D.V.C.No.6 of 2010 against the 7th respondent and his family members before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, Krikshna District. She also moved Crl.M.P.No.967 of 2010 seeking interim custody of the two minor children, pending disposal of the main DVC and the learned Junior Civil Judge, after considering the material brought on record, allowed the petition by an order dated 02.07.2010 directing the 7th respondent to handover the two minor children to the petitioner for interim custody subject to certain conditions. As the 7th respondent did not handover the minor children, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1093 of 2010 seeking to implement the orders dated 02.07.2010 and the same was allowed by an order dated 16.09.2010 directing the 6th respondent-Protection Officer under DVC Act to receive the
children from the custody of the 7th respondent with the assistance of the 5th respondent and handover them to the petitioner. While so, the other respondents in DVC No.6 of 2010 filed Crl.P.No.6340 of 2010 seeking to quash the DVC proceedings against them and this Court on 07.07.2010 while admitting the said criminal petition, granted stay of all further proceedings in DVC.
It is further stated that since respondents 1 to 6 are not implementing the orders of the Additional Junior Civil Judge dated 16.09.2010 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1093 of 2010, the petitioner filed W.P.No.25744 of 2010 before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to produce her minor children before this Court. Thereafter, the 5th respondent-Station House Officer, Veeravalli Police Station, filed a counter-affidavit sating that in view of the stay orders passed in Crl.P.No.6340 of 2010, they could not implement the orders. This Court, by order dated 02.11.2010, while vacating the interim stay granted on 07.07.2010, dismissed the Crl.P.No.6340 of 2010 and consequently closed the W.P.No.25744 of 2010 as no further orders are required to be passed in that writ petition.
It is further stated that the 7th respondent filed Crl.A.No.133 of 2010 against the order dated 02.07.2010 passed in Crl.M.P.No.967 of 2010 before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, and the same was dismissed by judgment dated 30.11.2010. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the 7th respondent filed Crl.R.C.No.2362 of 2010 before this Court and the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 27.02.2012.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do
not find any reason to entertain this writ petition since it is filed seeking implementation of the orders passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge dated 16.09.2010 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1093 of 2010 in D.V.C.No.6 of 2010, which cannot be gone into in a Writ of Habeas Corpus and hence the same is liable to be dismissed in limini.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
________________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA
____________________________ JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD
24.07.2012 Gsn
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ of habeas corpus is maintainable to enforce orders passed by a Civil Judge in a Domestic Violence case.
Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition seeking implementation of a Civil Court order in a divorce custody matter.
Shaik Saibee
State of Andhra Pradesh
N.V. Ramana
P. Durga Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
