Dismissed

Md. Vali Babu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC15 Mar 2016WP/2271/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought to take his daughter who was detained by her parents. The court interacted with the daughter in open court, who, citing a divorce, stated she did not wish to join her father. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds that the daughter expressed her unwillingness to join the petitioner.

Md. Vali Babu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.2271 of 2016

¶3

Date: 15.03.2016

¶4

Between: Md.Vali Babu S/o Shri Md.Rajulu, Aged 27 years, Indian-Muslim, Business, R/o D.No.34-15-30/190, 3^rd Street, Sangam Colony – 2, Mandapet, East Godavari District.

¶5

….. Petitioner

¶6

and The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

¶7

…..Respondents

¶8

The Court made the following:

¶9

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶10

WRIT PETITION No.2271 of 2016

¶11

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

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties. We also interacted with Ms. Chundru Hari Chandana, daughter of Sri. Chundru Venugopalam, in the open Court. It is true that when we heard the earlier Writ Petition No.41682 of 2015, she had stated that she would like to join the petitioner and accordingly, we disposed of the writ petition recording her wish and allowing her to go with him. Thereafter, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner stating that despite the order, her parents are not allowing her to join him and that they have illegally detained her.

¶13

Today Ms. Chundru Hari Chandana is present in the Court. Once again we interacted with her and she stated that in view of divorce, as per Mohammedan Personal Law, dated 13.11.2015, she is now not willing to join the petitioner. She also placed a copy of Talak Ul Sunnat (Nybarat) on record. We are not entering into a controversy whether the divorce is legal. Since, petitioner has clearly stated that she would not like to join the petitioner and would like to continue to stay with her parents, we have no option but to dismiss the petition. Order accordingly.

¶14

Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.

¶15

___________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶16

___________________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date :15.03.2016

¶17

kkm/tvk

¶18

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.2271 of 2016

¶20

Date: 15.03.2016

¶21

kkm/tvk

Md. Vali Babu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Vali Babu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Mohd Rafi, Vs The State of Telangana

Watch - Voice of the People, Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Katakam Mruthyunjayam, Vs State of Telangana

P.Venkat Rami Reddy Vs The Deputy Transport Commissioner and Secretary

The Gram Panchayat, Isnapur Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Ramky Enviro Engineers Limited, Vs Gram Panchuyat, Rep. by its Executive Officer