High Court · 2025

5. The Station House Officer, Raidurgam Police Station, Hyderabad District. 6. Smt. Dasari"Spandana, Alias Gunda Sushmitha, Wo Sri Gunda Satish Kumar, Aged about 38 years, Occupation. Private Service, Ri/o. Quarter No. SD 139, Singareni Quarters, Oppostie Lane to DSP Office, Yellandu, Bhadradri-Kothagudem.

7. Smt. Dasari Vasantha, W/o. Sri. Dasari Chandramouli, R/o. Quarter No. SD '139, Singareni Quarters, Opp. Lane to DSP office, Yellandu, Bhadradri- KothEigudem. .....RESPONDENTS 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. a. lssue a writ of Habeas Corpus, directing Respondent No.6 to produce the minor children before this Hon'ble court, b. Declare that the removal and detention of my minor children by Respondent No.6 in the USA is illegal, unlawful, and in willful defiance of the Hon'ble Family court's orders dated 23-12- 2024. c- Direct the Respondent No.2, to take immediate diplomatic steps with the u.s. authorities for the repatriation of my minor children to lndia. d. Direct the U.S. authorities, through the Respondent No.2 to take appropriate legal action against Respondent No.6 for violating the custody and guardianship rights granted to me by the lndian courts. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI BALA KRISHNA MANDAPATI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4 : Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Ms. L.pRANATHI REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUW SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel forthe Respondent No.s: SRI SAI AAKARSH, ASSISTANT G_p FOR REPRESENTING THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7 :- The Court made the following ORDER ---------- THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO WRIT PETITION No.1O41O of 2025 Mr. M.Bala Krishna, learned counsel appearing for thc petitioner. Ms. L.Pranathi Reddy, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. Mr. Sai Aakarsh, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent No.S. ORDER: (Per Hontrle Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya) The present writ petition has been Iiled for issuing a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondent No.6 to produce the minor children of the petitioner before this Court. The petitioner claims to be the father of the minor children who are nine and fourteen years old. The respondent No.6 is the wife of the petitioner and mother of these children.

2. The facts of the present case, as submitted by learned I counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the petitioner filed a petition under the relevant provisions of The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and under Section 6 of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 read with Section 7 olThe Family Courts Act, 1984, for a declaration that the petitioner is the natura-l father of the minor wards and for their permanent custody. The Guardians and Wards Original Petition (GWOP) was filed on I t I l

08.08.2023. The learned Family Court disposed of the petition by an order dated 23.12.2024 allowing the petition with costs and granting permanent custody of the minor wards to the petitioner.

3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.6 took the minor wards with her to the U.S.A. sometime in 2024 during pendency of the GWOP before the Family Court. Counsel seeks to justify filing of the present writ petition for issuing a Writ of Habeas Corpus for the respondent No.6 to produce the minor wards alleged detenues before this Co urt.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader hzrs filed written instructions stating that the petitioner informed the concerned Station House Olficer that the respondent No.6 lelt India for the U.S.A. along with the alleged detenues.

5. After considering the facts of the present case, we are of the Iirm view that the writ petition is not maintainable under the Habeas Corpus jurisdiction of the High Court. Apart from the petitioner being fully aware together of the fact of the children now being in the U.S.A in the custody of their mother/the respondent No.6, the petitioner failed to take steps for enforcing the order passed by the Family Court in the petitioner,s favour. ) ) I J The petitioner has an effective alternative remedy under the relevant statues for enforcing the order of permanent custody passed by the Family Court' The petitionel' has not taken any such.steps despite the order being passed on23'12'2024 and has instead chosen to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 0t the constitution of India aJter four months on O3.O4.2025'

6. We also notice from the order passed by the Family Court that the order is an ex parteorder against the respondent No.6 as stated in paragraph No.3 of the order'

7. The decisions cited on behalf of the petitioner do not assist the petitioner. Yashita Sahu us. State of Rajasthan And OtLrcrsl held that a Writ Petition for Habeas Corpus can be maintained by a parent for seeking custody of a child. The facts in the Yashita Sahu (supra) did not involve any order passed by the Family Court in favour of one parent for custody of the children' The lacts in Vishal Verma us. State Gouernment of NCT of Delhi and Others (unreported decision of the Delhi High Court) are also not comparable to the facts in the present case. In Vishal Verma, the Family Court passed an order granting visitation rights to the petitioner which was stayed by the learned Single Judge granting ' (2020) 3 s€c 67 I .1 x the petitioner visitation rights. The petitioner thereafter hled Contempt proceeding against the respondent No.2/mother for violating the orders of the Court with r'egard to the visitation rights. The Contempt was listed before the Single Bench and the petitioner rvas allowed to meet the children on certain dates. While the Contempt proceeding was pending, the respondent No.2/mothcr left the country for U.S.A. without seeking permission of the Court. The petitioner filed a second Contempt Petition and a Writ Petition seeking production of the minor child.

8. Without elaborating any further on the factual aspect of Vishal Verrna (supra) this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot invoke the Habeas Corpus jurisdiction of this Court when the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy available to him in terms of filing Execution proceedings before the Family Court. This is certainly not a case of illegal detention of the children or of the respondent No.6 flouting any Court orders as was the case in Vishal Venna (supra). As stated above, the order of the Family Court was passed ex parte against the respondent No.6. 9 . We accordingly hold that the present Writ petition is not marntainable \ \ 5

10. W.P.No.1O4 10 of 2025, along with ail connected applications, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. To //TRUE COPY// Sd/.S.MALLI KARJUNA.RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR t, 6ko 1. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Tetangana at 2 One CC to SRI BALA KRISHNA MANDAPATT, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICIToR GENERAL Hyderabad. [OUT] FFICER SECTI OF lNDIA, Advocate (OPUC)

4. Two CD Copies SA SB ,N- T4Sgtt I e' t o 2 o |!|AY 2025 (( t z o t oE s AT * cO HIGH COURT DATED:07,t0412025 ORDER WP.No.10410 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. @ 4$ )q