CASC ol Tejaswini Goud and Others v. ShekharJagdish Prasad Tewari and Othersl, The Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing

2. The Station House Officer, Hayath Nagar Police Station, Rangareddy District. 3. Mr. Surabhi Suman Reddy, S/o Surabhi Madhava Reddy, Aged 41 years, Occ ; Emplcyee in Meeseva R/o. H.No.2-72l1, Kuntloor, Near HanumanTempb, Hayath Nagar, Rangareddy District. .....RESPOM)ENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lMia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court nny be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondent No.2 police to produce minor daughter of the petitioner namely Surabhi Samsknrthi, aged 7 years d/o Surabhi Suman Reddy, 3rd respondent herein, Occ. Student, who is wrongfully onfired at the house of the 3rd respondent bearing No.2-72h, Kuntlmr near Hanuman Temple, Hayath Nagar, Rangareddy District-3015o5, sinoe {rom 1OlO8l2O24 onwards and release minor daughter of the petitioner to her custody. LA.NO:I OF 202tt Petition Urrder section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the secontl respondent police to forthwith produce minor daughter of the petitioner namel)/ Surabhi Sakskruthi, aged 7 years, and to release her to the custody of the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s ENNAMSETTY AKHIL, COUNSEL APPEARING oN BEHALF OF M/s JURISLIT LAW LLP Counsel for the Respondents : THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.92 O of 2o25 ORDER lppt the lkrt lne sn.tt1::r:tc P So,i Koshtll Heard Mr. Ennan-rsetty Akhil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/ s. Jurislit Law LLP for the petitioner and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla. learned Special Government pleader appearing for the respondents

2. The present is a petition filed for issuance of Writ ol Habeas Orr'pr.r:-; irr thc production of se'en (O7) _vear old minor d:rughtcr of thc pctitioner named Surabhi Samskruthi.

3. 'l'he brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the u,ifc ol' r<'spondent No.3 and tirc alleged detenue child is minor daughrr:r borr.r to the petitioner and the respc,ndcnt No.3. Thc marriagc betr.vct:rr the petitioner and responder.rt No.3 took place on 05.03.20 l7 and the allcsecl detenue was born from the said rnarriagc on 15.O6.2O1g. Before the petitioner got Government job both the lvile and hr-rsband use to leave at Kuntloor, Ha1,311l Nagar. Rangareddy.,. Aftr:r sontctime. the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent No.3 got deteriorated when the petitioner secured a.job as Nursing Olficer at Governnre nt General Hospital, Kothagudcm on 08.O2.,2O2,1 . Thc respondent No:3 forced and insisted the petitioner to quit the job and stay at his home at Hvderabad. How,ever, the petitioner refused and suggested the respondent No.3 to join her in Kothagudem. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 started abusing the petitioner physically and mentally in inebriated state arld in the last week of June, 2024, the respondent No.3 came to Kothagudem and assaulted the petitioner in front of her colleagues. Subsequently, the respondent No.3 confined the alleged detenue child at his residence in Kuntloor, Hayath Nagar and also denied access to the detenue.

4. [t is in this context that the Habeas Corpus petition has filed on 07 01 2025

5. Thc contention of the learned couusel lbr the pctitioner was thal since the respondent No.3 had taken the minor child forcefull-y etnd itlegally from the cusrody ol the petitioner and had put the detenue in respondent No.3's conlinement it amounts to illegal detention.

6. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the detenue is presently in the custody of the biological father and the detenue is living with him in the permanent residence. According to the learned Special Government Pleader. the petitioner herself voluntarily teft the matrimonial home to pursue her career against the wish of the respondent No.3.

7. It was further arg,ed by the learned special Government pleader that if at a]i, if the petitioner intends to claim the custody of the child, the petitioner has an statutory remedy available by moving a petition before the concerned court under the Guardians and wardens Act,

1890. Therefore, the present writ petition lor the said reasons is not maintainable and prayed for rejection of the same.

8. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, some of the admitted lactual matrix, $'hich stand undisputed in terms ol the pleadings are that: a) The marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.3 took place on 05.03.20 17. bf The minor child viz Surabhi Samskruthi being born on r 5 06.2018. cf As per the petitioner, the respondent No.3 confined the detenue child forcefully and illegalty on 1O.0g.2024. Since then, the minor child is in the custody of the respondent No.3.

9. [n the aforesaid factual backdrop, it r.r,ou Id be relevant at this juncture to refer to a judgment of the Ho.'ble supreme court in the .\\ i, , l. & CASC ol Tejaswini Goud and Others vs. ShekharJagdish Prasad Tewari and Othersl, The Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the maintainabilit-y of r he Habeas Corpus petition held in paragraph No. 14 as under, viz., "74. Wit of habeas corpus is a prerogatiue process for securing tle libertu of the subject by ttffording an effectiue means of immediaLe r eleose from an illegol or improper detention. T'he urit aLso extends its inJluence ta restore the custodg of a minor to his guardian u*en urongfullg depriued of it. The detention of a minor bg a p€rson utho is nol entitled to his legal custodg is treated as equiualertt to iLLegal detention for the purpose of grentuTq ruriL. tltrccttrrg ctlstu)U ol lltt: rninor chikl. For reslorelion of tle custody ol o minor from a person utln according to the personaL laut, is not his legal or natural guordian, in appropiate caase-s, Ihe utril coLtrl hcts junsdictktn." iO. Liker.t,isc in paragraph Nos, I9 arld 20 of the above judgment. the Hontrle Supreme (lourt held as under, viz., " 79. llabeas corpus proL:eedings is not to justifg or examine the le'galLty of the custodg. Habeas corpus proceedings is a metliun tltrouqh u'hich the atsLodA ol ttrc child is addressed to the discretion of th,e Court. Habeas co4rus is a prerogatiue u.tit uthich is on exlraordinary remedg ond the u.trit i.s i,ssued tuhere in the ciratm:jlances of the porticular cose, ordinary remedg prouided bu the Latu is either not auailoble or is ineffectiue; otherutise a wril LLtiLL not be issued. In child custodg matters, the pou.ter of the lligh CourT in gronting th.e urit is qualified onlg in coses uthere the detention of a minor bg a person who i"s not '{2019) 7 Supreme Court Cases 42 entitled to his legaL cttstodg. In uieu.t of the pronouncement on the issue in question by th.e Supreme Court and tLe High Courts, in our uiew, in child custody matters, the utit of habeas corpus is mointainable tuhere it is proued that the detention of o minor child by a porent or others uas illegal ond Luilhout ony authoitg of laut. 2O. In child anstodg matters, the ordinary remedg Lies only under the Hindu Minoitll and Guardianship Act or the (iuardians and Words Act as lhe cose maA be. ln cases artsing out of the proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, the jurisdiction of the court is determined bg whetter the minor ordinarily resides tuithin the oree on uhich the court exercises such juisdiction. There ore significant differences betuLeen the ertquin1 under th.e Guardtans and Wards Act ancl the exercise of pouers by a writ court ulhich is summarg in nature. What is important is the utelfare of the child. In the utit court, rights are determined onlg on the bosis of aJftdouits. Wh.ere the court is o[ the uieto that a detailed enquiry is required, the court tnaq ciecltne kt exercise t.he extraordinary jui.sdiction ctnd dir<tr:l th,' parties to approach lhe ciuil court. It is onlg in exceptionaL cases' the rights of the parties to the a$todA of the minor uill be clelermined in exercise of extraordinary junsdiction on a pet ion Jor hobeas corpus." r i r

11. Taking into consideration the aforesaid judicial precedent and also the factual matrix of the present case, it is evident that the ) parties have not availed the remedy under the Guardians and Wards Act, and directly approached this Court by filing a [{abeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ol India- Therefore, n'e are of the considered opinion that the proper course of action for the Page 6 of6 petitioner is to seek custody of the minor child through the appropriate civil court under the provisions of the Guardians and wards Act. The civil court is better suited to conduct a thorough examination of the custody dispute considering the best interests of the child which is the paramount concern in such matters. The writ of Habeas Corpus 1s an extraordinary remedy alrd is not meant to address custodv issues whcn an adequate statutory remedy is available. L2. Accordingly, this writ petition is not maintainable and is therefore dismissed. [lou,evcr, thc petitioner is at liberty to approach the civil court b). liling a petition under the Guardians and wards Act for the custody of the alleged detenuc child. That upon filing of such petition under the Guardian and wa.rds A.ct, the civil court shall determine the custody of alleged detenue child in accordance with the law at the earliest. No costs.

13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shatl stand closed. \ To //TRUE COPY// SD/.V. KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR lN-u OFFICER

1. Two CC's to ADVOCATE GENERAL, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

2. One CC to M/s JURISLIT LAW LLP, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies BS s SA ! \ aTc 'iE S 14 \ ,,:..\ 7 P,, 20FEB zozl i'r ,+ a'-) -, i'' -r/ HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 ORDER WP.No.920 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. D ,\.r \P