Disposed

Thota Ragini v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Jul 2025WP/20681/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners alleged police interference in a matrimonial dispute and coercion over land, violating Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A. Respondents stated the complaint was closed as civil in nature after preliminary enquiry. The Court directed respondents not to interfere with petitioners' life and liberty or civil disputes except in accordance with law, disposing of the writ petition without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Thota Ragini Vs The State of Telangana — Matrimonial and Divorce | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:20681 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Thota Ragini, D/o Late Srinivas Age. 30 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee Rl/o. H.No. 108 SD, Vidhyanagar, B-Zone, Ramakrishnapur Mandamari I/andal, lVlancherial District

¶9

Thota Ramalakshmi, Wo Late Srinivas Age. 45 years, Occ. Housewife FUo. H.No.^'108 SD, Vidhyanagar, B-Zone, Ramakrishnapur Mandamari [Vlandal, lt/lancherial District

¶10

Thota Ravi, S/o Thota Mallaih Age. 39 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee Rl/o. H.No. B-1-1 95, Katta Rampur Karimnagar fVlandal and District l/andamari lVlandal, Mancherial District

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Commissioner of Police, Karimnagar Commissionerate.

¶15

J The Station House Officer, P.S- Manakonudur, Karimnagar District.

¶16

4 Mudham Ratnakar, S/o Ramulu Age. 35 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee Rl/o. H.No. 11-4211, Kondapakala Village, Pedda Banjerupalli, Manakondur Mandal, Karimnagar District - 505469.

¶17

5 Mudham Buchamma, Wo Ramulu Age. 65 years, Occ. Housewife R/o. H.No. 1 1 -421 1, Kondapakala Village, Pedda Banjerupalli, Manakondur Mandal, Karimnagar Districl 505469.

¶18

D Ramidi Srinivas, S/o Not known Age.55 years, Occ. Agriculture Fl/o. Challur Village, Veenavanka Mandal Karimnagar District- 505129

¶19

7 Ramidi Laxmi, Wo Not known Age. 45 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o. Challur Village, Veenavanka Mandal Karimnagar District- 505129

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in

¶22

'the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.3, in interfering in the matrimonial^{disputesand life andpersonalliberty of the} petitioners and threatening them with dire^{consequencesandfurther abusing them} as being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory^{without followingthe due process of law} and violative of Articles 14,^{'19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and} consequently direct the^{Respondent No.3 not to interferein matrimonialdisputes} and life and^{personal liberty of the petitioners}

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶24

Petition under section 151 cPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct} the Respondent No.3 not to interfere^{in matrimonialdisputesand life and libertyof} the petitioners^pending disposal^{of the above writ petition}

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl.^{MUKKERA SAHITHISRI KAVYA}

¶26

Counsel forthe Respondent^{Nos.1to 3: GP FORHOME}

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.4to 7: ---}

¶28

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶29

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T, VINOD KUMAR

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.20681 of 2025

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

I{eard lear-ned counsel for the petitioners and leamed Govcmment Pleader lor Home appearing on .behalf of respondent Nos. I to 3, and perused the record. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the pafties, the Writ petition is taken up for hcaring and disposal at admission stage.

¶33

Having regard to the nature of /rs involved in the Writ petition and the lnanner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unofllcial respondenls is not necessary for adjudication ofthe present Writ Petition.

¶34

Tlre casc of the petitioners in brief is that though there are inter se marital disputes between the l't petitioner and 4,h respondent, the rcspo,dcnt authoritics are interfering with the personal life and liberty of the petitioners and threatening them with dire consequences and coercing the I't petitioner to transfer the land in lavour of 4'l' respondent herein, which action of the respondent auttiorities, it is contended as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19, 2l and 300-.4 ofthe Constitution oflndia.

¶35

¶36

., -l:: .- .a

¶37

Per contra, lean'red Govcmment^pleader for Home appear.ing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 while denying the Writ averments would submit that the 4'h respondent had approached thc 3'd respondcnt autliority and todged complaint on 05-07-2025 claiming that the said respondent had met the education expenses of tl-re I'r petitioner; and that 4tr' respondent had purchased land to an extenl- of Ac. i.04 gts arld got r.egistered the samc in the nanre of 1't petitioner lrerein and since, the said land was purchased out ol the monev belongir-re to the 4rl' respondent, the petitioners cannot claim the said propefty and as such, the respondent authorities have to enquire into the matter and take necessary action.

¶38

Learned Govemrnent Pleader fur.tl.rer submits that thc lespondent authorities on receiving the aloresaid cornplaint. made a GD entry and caused pleliminary enquiry.

¶39

(t. Leamed Governrrent Pleader furlher subrrrits that during preliminary enquiry, the respondent author.ities having noticed there are matrimonial disputes existing between the 4tL respondent and 1't petitioner herein and that both parties are claiming right over the subject land, the respondent authorities have closed the aforesaid complaint on 10-07-2025 as civil in nature.

¶40

Leamed Govemment Pleader further submits that the

¶41

respondent authorities except calling the petitioners to poiice Station on onc occasion for the purpose of causing preliminary enquiry into the complaint lodged by the 4tr' respondent, did not call the petitioners to police station or have made calls to the petitioners or threatened them with dire consequences or interfered with their life and liberty, and that the said allegations are only made only to cause prejudice against the respondents.

¶42

8 I have taken note of respcctive contentions urged.

¶43

Ilaving regard to the submissions made above, and taking note of the fact that the 4'h respondent having approached the 3'd respondcnt authority and lodging complaint on 05-07-2025 and the respondent authorities after causing preliminary enquiry into the aforesaid complaint, having closed the same on 10-07 -2025 as civil in naLure, this Courl is of the view that the respondent authorities are to be directed not to interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioners or in the civil disputes except in accordance with law.

¶44

Subject to above observation and direction, the Writ petition is disposed of. No costs

¶45

¶46

: _i-

¶47

t 1. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending sha[

¶48

stand closed.

¶49

SD/- K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGI RAR ,I

,TRUE COPY//

SECTIO FFICER

To,

1 The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶54

2 The Commissioner of Police, Karimnagar Commissionerate.

¶55

3 The Station House Officer, P.S. l/anakonudur, Karimnagar District.

¶56

4 One CC to SRl. N/UKKERA SAHITHI SRI KAVYA Advocate [OPUC]

¶57

5 Two CCs to GP FOR HOI\4E ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶58

t) Two CD Copies

KKS

LS^(r.

HIGH COURT

DATED:1810712025

o c3 1 H E S r4 /6.
(,
,)
10 siP 205
i (
t o
r-rn rt) rlr'-t' l

¶64

ORDER

¶65

WP.No.20681 of 2025

¶66

DISPOSING THE WRIT^PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶67

^e ol:
al Lv <br>YY -,,^4
,-AXx*
?)

Thota Ragini v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Thota Ragini v. The State of Telangana

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

Sunitha Devi Jena Vs The State of Telangana

Siddam Rajaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Kotla Rama Devi Vs The State of Telangana

Murali Krishna Kona Vs The State of Telangana

Krishna Nagar Plots Owners Welfare Society Vs The State of Telangana and 8 Others

Gantenapalli Babu Rao Vs The State of Telangana