Dismissed

Madhineni Muralidhar v. The Government of A.P.

Telangana HC16 Oct 2012WP/31086/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ of Habeas Corpus seeking release of Vasireddy Mahathi from alleged illegal detention by her father. Court, upon interaction with the majority detenu who stated she was voluntarily residing with her brother, held she was not illegally detained and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

No direction for production issued; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Madhineni Muralidhar Vs The Government of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 31086 of 2012

¶3

ORDER: (Per NVR, J)

¶4

The petitioner filed the present writ petition, seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce before the Court one Vasireddy Mahathi, who is said to have been illegally detained by her father, the 5^th respondent herein, and set her at liberty.

¶5

The petitioner contends that he and the alleged detenu namely Vasireddy Mahathi, loved each other and intended to get married. The 5^th respondent herein, who is the father of the alleged detenu, is against their marriage proposal, and he, therefore, illegally detained the alleged detenu in his custody and is taking steps to get her married to another person against her will and wish. The petitioner further contends that the respondent-police, being influenced by the 5^th respondent, are not taking any action to set the alleged detenu free from his illegal detention, and on the other hand, they have detained him for three days in the police station and are threatening to implicate him in false cases.

¶6

The 3^rd respondent- Inspector of Police, Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam, filed counter-affidavit, wherein denying the allegations made by the petitioner, he inter alia stated that on receipt of information about filing of the present writ petition, he caused enquiries with the 5^th respondent and learnt that the alleged detenu is not illegally detained by him and she is voluntarily residing with her maternal grandmother at Hammigi village of Hubli District, Karnataka. The counter-affidavit also discloses that the 5^th respondent produced the alleged detenu before the 3^rd respondent, and she gave statement that she voluntarily went to her grandmother’s house at Hammigi village and is not illegally confined by her family members as alleged by the petitioner. The 3^rd respondent thus prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶7

Today, the 5^th respondent appeared before the Court along with the alleged detenu. We have interacted with the alleged detenu in the chambers. She stated that she is a major and voluntarily residing with her brother at Bangalore at present and the 5^th respondent has not illegally detained her.

¶8

Having regard to the categorical statement made by the alleged detenu, who is a major being aged 24 years, that she is not in illegal detention of the 5^th respondent and she is voluntarily residing with her brother at Bangalore, it cannot be said that she is illegally detained by the 5^th respondent, and, therefore, no direction much less the direction sought by the petitioner can be issued by this Court.

¶9

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶10

_________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶11

______________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD

¶12

16^th October, 2012 IBL

Madhineni Muralidhar v. The Government of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhineni Muralidhar v. The Government of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of a.P., Vs Nama Ramakrishna

Kiran Shankar Vadla, Vs Superintendent of Police, Mahaboobnagar District at

Smt. Mekala Kusuma, Vs The State of A.P.

Mangali Hari Krishna, Vs State of A.P.

Banoth Shankar, Vs The State of A.P.

K. Rajesh. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh