Allowed

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

Telangana HC5 Jan 2016WP/41682/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This habeas corpus petition sought production of a woman allegedly detained by her parents. The court allowed the petitioner to take the woman if she consents, emphasizing her capacity to decide and ordering parents not to prevent her.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the writ petition permitting the petitioner to take the wife if she desires, directing parents not to prevent her.

Md. Vali Babu, Vs The State of Andhra… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

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

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶3

WRIT PETITION No. 41682 OF 2015

¶4

05.01.2016

¶5

Between: Md. Vali Babu, East Godavari District.

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

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

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

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

¶10

WRIT PETITION No. 41682 OF 2015

¶11

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

¶12

This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by one Md. Vali Babu, S/o. Md. Rajulu, seeking production of Smt. Chundru Hari Chandana @ Shajeeda Dilshad, who, according to the petitioner, has been illegally detained by her parents. Parents are not parties to the writ petition.

¶13

Learned Government Pleader, however, kept Ms. Hari Chandana and her parents present in the Court.

¶14

Petitioner and Ms. Hari Chandana claim that they married as per Mohammedan Personal Law on 02.03.2013.

¶15

Learned Government Pleader placed Talaknama dated 13.11.2015 also on record duly signed by the petitioner, Ms. Hari Chandana, their parents and witnesses. Copy of Talaknama is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. According to the petitioner, they were forced to sign on the Talaknama.

¶16

We are not inclined to express any opinion on the marriage and Talaknama since that is not the issue before the Court. We interacted with Ms. Hari Chandana on last occasion in Chamber and today in the Court and she expressed that she would like to go with the petitioner. In the course of interaction, she also informed us that after marriage her parents allowed her alone to go to college and appear for some examination. That being so, it is always open for

¶17

Ms. Hari Chandana, if she so desires, to join the petitioner. We also apprised her of the fact that if the Talaknama is as per the Mohammedan Personal Law, she should consider the consequences thereof while joining the petitioner as his wife. Ms. Hari Chandana is

¶18

double graduate (M.Tech). She is 25 years old and capable enough to take her own decision.

¶19

In view thereof, we dispose of this Writ Petition allowing Ms. Hari Chandana to go with the petitioner if she so desires. It is needless to mention that the parents of Ms. Hari Chandana shall not prevent, if she desires to join the petitioner.

¶20

_________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶21

________________________ S.V. BHATT, J Date: 05.01.2016 va

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Gajjela Narasimha Reddy, Vs The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa

Broiler Farmers Association (Regd.No. 1909/2004) Vs Union of India

L.v.Ramana S/o. Late Satyanarayana Vs The Union of India

Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Vs Mnr College of Engineering and Technology

D. Krishna Kishore, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

J.C.Sugars Vs The State of a.P.Department of Industries and