High Court · 2025

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department' Secietariat Building, HYderabad. The Director General of Police, Telangana State, Hyderabad ' The Commissioner of Police, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State' The Station House Officer, Saroornagar Police Station ' Vidvankura Srioada, D/o. Sarveshwar Rao, Aged about' 40 years, Occ Pvt i.i,r""et. nyoin.ub. to-szlt, sri Krishna Nagar, Road No.5, Near Hanuman Temple, Dilsukhanagar, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of - .- WRIT oF HABEAS CoRPUS, directins th.,e Rel13nd:nt los 02 to the detenue i.e. chittavarjula Naga Pavana Shyama Nandana alias chittivar.iula shyama Sukruthi before this Hon'ble court who have been illegally abducted by the sth respondent and so as to set child at liberty and handover the child to the petitioner as per the decree passed in GWOP No. 55 of 2023, daled. 05-09-2023 by the Hon'ble Judge Family Court, Ranga Reddy, at L'B' Nagar' 91!9 pr"9i!39 ",.&;.;;: t Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOGILI ANAVENt, REPRESENTTNG SRI MALLELA BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI SWAROOP OORILLA. SPECIAL GP ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.5:-- The Court made the lbllowing: ORDER /./ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY ANI) THE HONOT]RABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESTIWAR RAO W.P.No. 1508 ()F 2025 QRDEB' (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P'Sam Koshv) Heard Mr. Mogili Anaveni, learned counsel representing Mr.BhaskarMallela,leamedcounselforthepetitionerand Mr.swaroop Oorilla, leamed Special Government Pleader attached to the office of the leamed Advocate General for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Perused the record.

2. Mr. Madhu Sathish Chittavarjula, the petitioner herein' whoisfatheroftheallegeddetenueviz.,ChittavarjulaNaga Pavana Shyama Nandana @ Chittivarjula Shyama Sukruthi' has filed the instant writ petition seeking for the production of child to be brought before the Court by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under writ ofHabeas CorPus'

3. The present is a writ petition which has been filed seeking forissuanceofwritofHabeasCorpusfortheproductionofthe daughter of the petitioner, who is said to be in illegal confinement of respondent No.5. The petitioner is the father of the alleged r 2 detenue and respondent No.5 is also accepted to be the mother of the alleged detenue. The petitioner further contends that in the year

2023.he has filed GWOP.No.55 of 2023 before the leamed Family Courl, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, where there was an ex parte decr,:e also passed in his favour on 05.09.202L In spite of the ex parte decree granting permanent custody of the minor ward to the petitioner, respondent No.5 is not honouring the said order. On a query being put to the leamed counsel for the petitioncr, he submits that through the ex parte order was passed on OS.Og.2024, till date no proceedings have been initiated for the same.

4. Today, the leamed Special Govemment pleader appearing for the State r;ubmits that upon investigation, they could r.each to the conclusion and for convenience respondent No.5 also is present before the CoLu1. The leamed Special Govemment pleader further informs that fLling of GWOp itself is malicious and the ex parte order has been obtained by playing mischief, as there was no proper service ofnotice upon respondent No.5.

5. He further submits that respondent No.5 has informed the police authorities that the so called detenue, the child born to the petitioner and respondent No.5, in fact, had some serious ailment l/ 3 fiom the time of birth itself and subsequently on 22.12.2O22, the child has expired.

6. The death certifrcate issued by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation has also been enclosed and brought by respondent No.5 today in the Court. Leamed Special Government Pleader further informs that the aspect of death of the child was duly informed to the petitioner at the relevant point of time telephonically. In spite of all that, he has filed the present writ petition only with an intention of harassing respondent No.5. l. The fact that the contention raised by the petitioner to be false and vexatious stands established from one of the paragraphs in the written complaint given by the petitioner to the Commissioner of Police, Saroomagar Police Station, Rachakonda dated 04.01.2025 whereunder in paragraph 3 it is mentioned as under: "Regrettably, since the divorce, Smt.Vidyankura Sripada was not allowing me to leverage my visitation rights. I used to see my dauqhter secretlv once or twice in a week (without knowinq them) durinq her wav to school or return from the school and feel haoov. But from last month stnce 20s December. 2024 I couldn't see vitv and deeolv her acti concerned on her wellbeinq". 'l I I I 4

8. The pJain reading of the aforesaid contents of the letter by itself would establish the falsity in the complaint so made by the petitioner, inasmuch as in the said complaint, he has stated that up till middle of December, 2024 he had been frequently seeing the child when she was going to the school once or twice in a week. The said fact is totally false, as the child had expired about more than two years back itself i.e., 22.12.2022. If the child had died in 2022, it is di lficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that he had been seeing the child going to the school up till the middle of December, 2()24

9. Given the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the present is a petition u,hich has been filed only with a mala fide intention of harassing respondent No.5. Therefore, we are inclined to dismiss the writ petition with costs.

10. Accorclingly, we dismiss the writ petition rvith costs of Rs.50,0001 (Rupees fifty thousand only) to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Authority within a period of 30 days from today. ./, ,,,.,,, I I I I 5 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. MEMORANDUM OF COSTS W.P.NO.1508 ot 2025 Costs Quantified by Hon'ble Court (That the Petitioner herein are directed to pay costs of Rs.50,0001 (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the High Court Legal Services Authority, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, within Thirty day (30) from the date of order. TOTAL Rs. Ps 50,000-00 s0,000-00 To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR S T ON OFFICER of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

1. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Authority, High Court for the State 2- One CC to Sri lvlallela Bhaskar, Advocate IOPUC] 3. Two CC to The Advocate General, High Court for the State of Telangana, at HyderabadIOUT]

4. Two CC to The Special GP for Swaroop Oorilla, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad[OUT]

5. Two CD Copies TJ GJP 1l HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:21 10112025 ORDER r-\E :l TA l' 31 ,'ri,t'l ?t.i! a L\ -: ,! .. * ./-; * Ij:s p ' WP.No.1508 of 2025 ,( :) tj) DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS