Disposed

Ch.Naveen Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Aug 2015WP/22992/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Acting Chief Justice and Justice Bhatt disposed of a habeas corpus petition held as not pressed. The court observed the petitioner's son required surgery and the mother undertook to provide treatment while directing her to inform the petitioner of operations.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as not pressed; mother directed to inform petitioner of surgical decisions.

Ch.Naveen Kumar Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA

¶2

PRADESH

¶3

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 22992 OF 2015

Date: 19.08.2015

Between:

Ch. Naveen Kumar

… Petitioner

And

The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary for Home, Hyderabad & others.

¶12

… Respondents

¶13

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶14

WRIT PETITION No. 22992 OF 2015

¶15

PC: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

This Habeas Corpus petition is filed by a father seeking production of his son Venkat Siddharth, who, according to him, has been illegally detained by his wife -respondent No.7.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 admits that the boy is suffering from some heart ailment. On last occasion, we had directed respondent No.7 – mother to take her son to Yashoda Hospital for examination. Accordingly, the son was taken to the hospital and the consultant Cardiologist attached to the Hospital, after examining the son, has given the report/opinion.

¶19

We have perused the report. It appears that the child needs surgery. Respondent No.7 undertakes to extend medical treatment including open heart surgery as per the advice of doctors to her son. In view thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the writ petition.

¶20

Writ petition is disposed of as not pressed. We hope and trust that the petitioner shall share expenditure for his son’s treatment. Respondent No.7 is directed to inform the petitioner as and when doctors decide to operate their son. This order shall not preclude the parties from approaching the family Court for appropriate relief.

¶21

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶22

DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶23

________________________ S.V. BHATT, J Date: 19.08.2015 ES

Ch.Naveen Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch.Naveen Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Veerla (Upputala) Durga Vs The State of Telangana

Poreddy Greeshma, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary

Rasala Subbamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Venkateshwara Swamy Temple, Batchupeta, Vs The District Collector and District Magistrate

Bharathala Subba Rayudu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ch.Rama Rao Vs K.Adityanath Dass, IAS