Disposed

Sure Srinivasa Rao v. The Station House Officer

Telangana HC11 Jun 2025WP/12599/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Parents sought a writ directing police to act on their representation alleging their daughter's husband was confining her and denying medical treatment. Court-appointed HCLSC visit found the daughter wished to live with her husband; she and her two-year-old child were admitted to Gandhi Hospital, she delivered a baby, and on medical advice the family was directed to be discharged with security mea

What the court decided

AI extract

Sure Srinivasa Rao Vs The Station House Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE^{ELEVENTHDAYOF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY FIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE T'VINOD KUMAR}

¶6

WRIT PETI TION^{NO:12599 0F 2025}

¶7

Petween:

¶8

Sure Srinivasa^{Rao,S/o.Kotaiah,Agedabo^ut 55 yoars'} -Occ Business, TerJple,

¶9

' Fio.H.lio.+-soon, ' Sii aiua n6aa, ^opp Sal Baba dhinArahourinag6r,^{Guotur, Andhra Pradesh State'}

¶10

? Smt.Sura Vasavi, Wo.^{Sure SrinivasaRaoAged about 48 years'Occ'-House} Vriii;"-iri"HlNi+-soo6,^{-s-ai''ei6a -Roa'd. opp sai BabaTemple} 6njnOramoutinagar,^{Guntur, Andhra Pradesh State'}

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The Station House^{Officer' Miyapur} Pqlice Slation^Cyberdad C'ommiiiionafate,^{RangaReddy District'}

¶14

The Gommissioner^{of Police,Cyber:abadCommissionqrateRanga Roddy} District.

¶15

The State^{of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Home Department} $gcretariat,^HYdeqabad.

¶16

The^{Gandhi $ospital, Secunderabad, Rep by its Superintendent'} $r[^{is ouo motu impleaded as per C'O'dt'30'04'?025'}

¶17

...RE3POilDEllTS

¶18

Petitiol^{under Article 226 of lhe Constitutionof lndiapraying that in the} circumglanggs^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Courtmaybe} please(toissueawrit,orderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureof writ of Mandamul^{to declare the delay and inaction on the part of the} Respo4{ent No.1^{in consideringthe representation dated 13-04-2025 submitted} by^the Petitioners^{to t6ke the necessary action to save the daughterof the} Petitioners^{nqmedSure Pravallika,aged about 27 yea$residing at Padmavathi} Pride,^{Plot No.418, Mathrusree Nagar, Hafeezpet, Miyapur, Hyderabadfrom the} psychqqathic treatment^{of her husband namedL Venkata ChalapatiRao anC}

¶19

give necessar)i rr l( i ;al treatment to the daughter of the Pet ti:n::rs as arbitrary, illegal and v olatio r of Article 14 and 19 of the Constitu .io r of lndia and consequently dir::t he Respondent No.1 to consider the rer, re:ientation dated 13-04-2025 subnritt r,1 by the Petitioners for giving necessar,y' mrldical treatment lo the daughter c f t ': Petitioners named sure Pravallika forth\vit\ in the interest of^justice

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 202a

¶21

Petition unde llection^'15'1 CPC pr4ying that in the circunrstances state( in the atfidavit filr-.rj I sgpport of the petition, the High Court nrar,,be plqased to dirqct the Respon -d^yrt No. 1 to cqnsider the represental;s6 rJatqd 13-04-ZQZ1 Submitted by the Ir,titionerq for giving leeessary medical treratment to tho daughter of the Peti rrners named sure^prayallika, aged about 2i' years residlng at Padmavalhi [)ric:, Plot l-t|o.418, Mathrusree Nagar, Haleezpet Uliy2pr.rp, Hyderabad perrdinr; I sposal of the Writ^petition.

¶22

Counsef for the Petlrioner: SRI K.KISI ANMAYEE

¶23

pounsgl for !h Res rondent Uo.t to 3: GP FgR IIOME

¶24

fhe^Coqrt ryade the ',;rllowing: ORDER

¶25

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI^{]USTICE T. VINODKUMAR} Writ tion 202

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This Writ Petition^{is filed by the petitioners claiming themselvesto} be the^{parentsof Smt'L.Pravalika,who is stated to have marriedone} L.Venkata Chalapati^{Rao against their wishes and living withhim; andthat} her husband -^{sri L.venkatachalapati Raois not providingtheir daughter} necessary medical^{treatment and is not allowingher daughter to come out} of the house by^{locking the premiseswhenever he is going out'}

¶29

2,ThepetitionersbythepresentWritPetitionfurtherclaimthattheir daughter's^husband -^{Sri L.Venkata ChalapatiRao is sufferingfrom} psychopathic^{problem and as such their daughter should be saved from} the hands of^{her husbandand allow them to provide necessarymedical} treatment to their^daughter.

¶30

On the^{petitioners approaching this Court with the aforesaid prayer'} this Couft by taking^{note of the claimmade by the petitioners, by order} dt.25.04.2025^{directedthe Secretary, High Court LegalServices} Committee(HcLSc),toVisitthehouseofL.Pravallika,whoisstatedtobe residing at'Padmavathi^{Pride, Plot No'418, MathrusreeNagar'Hafeezpet'} Miyapur, Hyderabad,^{and record her statement on the aspectof whether} sheisbeingconfinedtoher.houseandnotbeingallowedtocomeoutof house by her husband and^{also not being provided withmedical treatment}

¶31

/ //

¶32

¶33

by her lrLrs'rnd as alleged by the petitioners and to l;ucnrit her repot to this^(lou1 t i 28.04.2025

¶34

O't 2:,04.2025, the Secretary had submitted hr:r report in relation to her vi;it c rhe house and the interaction she had ra,itr t.prava,ika and her hrsblrr^,:;ri L.Venkata Chalapati Rao on 26.04.2025.

¶35

By ttr,report submitted by the Secretary, HCLSC, it has been stated the: prava,ika had denied the craim of petrtione.,; of she being confined k> r:r house by her husband; and that she irtenjs to rive with her l^,ustre n I - Sri L.Venkata Chalapathi Rao on y a nd they are apprehenriin threat to their life from 1.t petitioner.

¶36

The r i,:cretary, HCLSC, by her report fudh lr stated that Smt.L.Prarrall <,,t is in advance stage of pregnancy, sufF3rinc from severe varicose v,:in rroblem and appears to be very weak, arre.ni : and lien. By the report it i, stated that even the chird who is statecr ,.o le two years old appear; tr lie weak and lean and suffering from malnulritron.

¶37

This li r rt, taking note of the aforesaid report :jubn itted by the Secretary, JC i:rl, had directed that L.pravallika and her two ),ear old child -Ayaan^Kesyr 6r [s admitted into Gandhi Hospitar for beinq provided with necessarl/ rn:< i':al care, including the status of the fetus ard directed the matter tc) lrt: i,;ted on 02.05.2025 for informing the progrr:ss of their healthcondtor

Pursuant to the order of this Court, it has been^{stated that} L.Pravallika and her two^year old child^{were admittedinto Gandhi Hospital} on 30.04.2025 at 8.05^{pm Smt.L.Pravallikawas admitted in the} department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology,^{while the child} -^{Master Ayaan} Kasyap aged two^years was admitted under^{pediatric care.}

¶42

On 02.05.2025, Dr.Deepthi, Assistant^{Professor,Department of} Obstetrics and Gynaecology, along^{with Dr.V'Ajay Mohan, Professor of} Pediatrics, Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, appeared^{before this Court and} gave statement as to the health condition of L.Pravallika as^{well as the} child - Ayaan Kasyap.

¶43

This Cout, by taking note of the statement^{made by the concerned} Doctors, who appeared before this Court as^{noted above, directedthe} Superintendent, Gandhi Hospital^{(who was suo motu impleadedas} respondent No.4 in the Writ Petition), to continue^{to providenecessary} treatment to L.Pravallika wife of L.Venkata Chalapati^{Rao as wellas their2} year old child - Ayaan Kasyap. This Court directed the hospital authorities to place before this Court the report of both the^{in-patients with} a^fudher direction not to discharge both the^{patientswithoutthe orders} of^this Court.

¶44

¶45

¶46

Plr;t lnL to the aforesaid direction, learned Gcv,-.rrm ent leaders for Won a n .)evelopment and Child Welfare and fve,lical and ealth submit tl at l,r: in-patients are being provided with treainrerrt.

¶47

3r t0.06.2025, Dr.Deepthi, Dr.V.Ajay^.,lohan and

¶48

Dr.P.Venl:;t(:hwarlu appeared before this Couft ard s_rbmilted that L.Pravallilla, ''ho, at the time of admission into Gandhi ll.spitar was at the advanced :rtt crr: of pregnancy, had delivered a female cri d :tn 01.06.2025 at 3.1.1 prr.^-rre Doctors further informed this Court that thcugh the new born chilcl^,r r:; weighing I.75 kg. at the time of birth after providing necessary ,r, ir:ment/ and also after giving injections, I/ f uids, calcium supplementa ,n etc., the hearth condition of the new rrorn baby is hemodynanri' z'rily stabre and arso good acceptance of dirlct breast feeds from motl-er t,td nutritional supplements.

¶49

Ihe ), rtors, who appeared before this Court, have also jnformed that bcrth trr rnother and the two year old child, vjz. _.F,ravailika and Ayaan Kas yar along with the new born baby can be rlis::harqed with advice lbr r,ll, ,,,, up.

¶50

On :lr€ lForesaid statement being made to this C()urt, this Court had directe c t r,.) Doctors to submit a report to the above : .ff( )ct, pursuant to which, ea red Government preader had praced befcre :his court a

¶51

¶52

¶53

communication^addressed to^{the Superintendent,Gandhi Hospital,} Secunderabad,^{dt.1 1.06.2025.}

¶54

The said^{communication addressedby the Doctorsto the} Superintendent,^{Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad,dt. 11.06.2025, as placed} before this Court^{is taken on record.}

¶55

In view of the aforesaid^{report as placed beforethis Couttby the} learned Government Pleaders^{appearingon behalf of Medical andHealth} as well as Woman^{Developmentand Child Welfare, this Court is of the} view that L.Pravallika and^{her two year old child} -^{AyaanKasyap who} were admitted into Gandhi^{Hospitalon 30.04.2025 pursuantto the order} of this Court can be directed^{to be discharged from the GandhiHospital} along with her^{newborn female childon 01.06.2025.}

¶56

Since, L.Pravallika^{and her husband apprehenda threat fromthe} petitioners, this court is of the view that^{learned Government Pleader for} Home is to be directed to^{extend necessaryprotectionfor L.Pravallikaand} her new born child along^{withher two year old child} -^{Ayaan Kasyap,t0} be^provided with^{security for reachingtheirhome.}

¶57

Further, taking note of^{the fact that on the Secretary,HCLSC,} visiting the house of L.Pravallika^{and L'Venkata ChalapatiRao on} 26.04.2025 having found their^{condition of living in fear and without any} kind of security, this Court is of^{the view that the Secretary,HCEC,who}

¶58

¶59

¶60

had earlir:r 'i';ited L.pravailika and her husband L.Venkata charapati Rab at their t,)r. :,,), situated at padmavathi pride, plot N0.41,3, Mathrusree Nagar, Hirfer ;'1tet, Miyapur, whose mobile number was giv€n in the order dt.25.04.;t(),2; is to be directed to make a visit once n fotnighUy for a period cf th :0 months to enquire about their weil-bein3 0n a saturday after beinS rl s(:harged from the Gandhi Hospital, where ttrey,are presenfly admitted it: i i t.patients.

¶61

Furthe' since, L.pravallika and L.Venkata Chalapati R.ro, apprehend threat frorn t r: petitioners herein as to their safety and s,_.cr rrity, it is also made <:lea- tl . t the mobile number of the Secretary, HC_S,C, would be the .ne sinqre Fro r'i: oF contact for L.pravailika and her husbanr tir comprain of any threat :: ilem from the petitioners herein and in ttle event of any such conce-r being raised by L.pravalrika and her h -rs ba nd-1. Venkata Chalapali Rar , and on being informed by the SecretarT, HCLSC, the concernod 6 : tice authorities, including the official; of Woman Developme rt ,.rd Child Welfare Department, shall take nec(,)ssary action forthwitl' t,) e tjure that there is no threat to their safebr lt l:he hands of the petitiorers rr any other person.

¶62

In tl-e r u:tnt of the authorities receiving any call frcnr tle Secretary, HCLSC, wh I t , :; been nominated as single polnt contact for L.pravallika and her hu;ba r,1 - L.Venkata Chalapathi Rao to seeldinfr)r.n in the event of any threa r:irrg pursued by them from the petitioners hr:rein or the

¶63

¶64

authorities themselves^{noticingthreat or danger to theIiFe of the above} named^{personsrthe authoritiesshall take action forthwith'}

¶65

2L. The Department of Woman^{DevelopmentandChildWelfareis also} directed to extend benefits of^{any schemeto Smt.L.Pravalllkaand her} children as in vogue to address^{the issueof malnutritionlike supplying} 'Balaamrutham' by visiting her house.

¶66

Further, this Court^{is also of the view that in orderto ensure their} safety and security,^{the jurisdictional police authoritiesare directedto} keep a 'Point Book' at the^{premisesof L.Pravallikaand L'Venkata} chalapathi Rao for a^{periodof three months and the concerned officials} attached to the^{policestation shall visit the premisesdaily and sign therein} to ensure safety and^{security of L.PravallikaalongwithL'Venkata} Chalapathi Rao and^{theirtwo children.}

¶67

Subject to above^{direction, the Writ Petitionis disposed of' No} order as to costs.

¶68

T4.Miscellaneouspetitions,ifany,pendinginthiswritpetitionshall

¶69

SD/-P. PONNA^KRISHNA A SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶70

stand closed.

¶71

SECTION OFFICER e Station CYberabad

¶72

To;

¶73

1 The Station House^{Officer,MiYaPur} Commissionarate,.^{RangaReddy Districl.}

¶74

The Commissioner^{of Police, Cyberqgad CommissionarateRangaReddy} District.

¶75

The^{Principal Secrgtary,Home DepartmentSecretariat' Hyderabad' Stab of} felangana.

¶76

The Superintendent,^{Gandhi Hospital,} $ecunderabad'

¶77

¶78

¶79

One CC tc lit K.KISHANMAYEE Advocate IOPUCI

¶80

6 ' Two CCs Hydorabac to 'C :lP t Tl FOR HOME, High Court for the Statr: of Telanganq at

¶81

Two CCs t,:^(,iP FOR MEDICAL & HEALTH, High Cou rt for the State of Telangana :rt^-lyderabad [OUT]

¶82

B. Two CCs 1o⁽ [:' FOR WOMEN DEV. & CHILD WELFARE H gh Court for thg State of^Te lar rana at Hyderqbad [OUT]

¶83

9 Two QD^C,;t:i,r,,

¶84

BSR,

¶85

BS W.

CC TODAY

i I l

( L

HIGH COr.,!R r

DATED:11t}ii12025

) iH ril
Y
q
-:)
I
ORDER r) 11 llld) a
,+
*
WP.No.12599 of 2025
,i: -
'"-:.:.
,--- i)-'

¶95

DIEPOSING CIF THE WRIT PETITION, wlTHouT C0 51t

¶96

(
b I
<br>

Sure Srinivasa Rao v. The Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sure Srinivasa Rao v. The Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd Ismail Biyabani @ Fruit Mohammed Vs State of Telangana

Kunrapu Ashok Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Dastagir Shareef Vs The State of Telangana

P. Srirama Chandra Murthy Vs The Government of Telangana

K . Vijayalakshmi Vs The State of Telangana

Fishermen Cooperative Society Vallur Vs The State of Telangana