lt/adhu Vadigineni v. 1. Vidudala TV.T.Satya Prasad

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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to handover her kids to her and ensure payment of child support arrears while directing the offices to investigate the complaints in a time bound manner and submit the report and take action within two weeks by the end of this month as her kids have lost one academic year already as they do not have student VISAS to maintain their stay here is illegal. !.A.NO:1 OF 2013 (WPMP.NO:26436 OF 2013) Petition UnCer 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 responcent No.1. to handover my kids officially anri pay the said arrears of as, 12,55,000i - that he owes me pending disposal of the above writ petition. l.A.NO:2 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 26437 OF 2013) Petition Un,ler Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour-t may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to investigate the complaint take action and submit the report in a time bound manner within two weeks by the end of this month as the kids have lost one academic year already pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.MADHU (PARTY-IN-PERSON) Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : M/s S.VANI Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI SRIDHAR BHUVANAGIRI, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENE.RAL OF INDIA The Court made the following ORDER i-) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAIflTI RAMAKRISHNA RIDDY WRIT PETITION No.21583 of 2O13 ORDER: Heard Sri Sridhar Bhuvanagiri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home

2. The petitioner/part5r in person did not appear on earlier occasion, as such, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption 'For Dismissal'vide order dated 21.08.2023. Even today there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner/party in person. It appears '*rat the petitioner/part5r in person has no inclination to pursue her own case.

3. The petitioner approached this Court seelSing writ of mandamus to official respondents to hand over her kids and to ensure the payment of child support arrears and in addition to direct the respondent offices to investigate into the complaints made by the petjtioner in a time bound manner and submit report and take action within two weeks by end of July, 2OL3 alleging that the child.ren of the petitioner lost one academic year as they do not have student visas.

4. In reply, the official respondents f,rled counter way back in the year 2Ot4, wherein report dated 16-07.2013 $K Inspector 2 VRKR, J \\ I)_.21 583_201 3 of Police, Special Task Force, Special Branch, I{yclerabad addressed to the Joint Commissioner of Police, Spe,:ial Branch, Hyderabatl City, has been placed on record. A pe'rusal of the said report reveals that Police acted upon the complaint made b-y the petitioner and also registered a case in Crime No.2i5l2O1O by Karkhana Police Station under Se.crions 361. 365, 406, 1O7 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against hcr ex-husband and her own mother. After due investigation, the investigating officer referred the case as 'action dropped'. The report also reveals that the husband of the petitioner filed a case in FCOP No.1457 of 2O1O for gr-ant of permanelll custody of his two minor children vi:2., Vidudaia Arjun, aged 16 years and Vidudala Ashwinchandra" aged about i 1 years under Section 25 of the Guardians and War.ds Act read with Section 7 of the Family Court Act. The Famiiy Court allowed ttre said petition on 18.07.2011 granting permanent custody o-' the two minor children tiIl they attain the age of majority. Aggrieved by the said orders of the Famill. Court, the petitioner approached this Court vide FCA No.170 af 2O11 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 22.12-2Otl. Challenging the orders of this Court, the petir-ioner also approache,C the Honourable Supreme in SLP (Civil) I I i i i I I i I i I ! I I I I i i I i I I t I t I I i I I I ! 4 : I t I ! I r j : .l I I I I I I : l i I l : l : To 3 VRKR, J wp_21583_2013 No.16495 of 2012 and the said appeal was dismissed at the initial stage.

5. In vierv of the above facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that the cause in the present writ petition does not surrrive for adjudication. 6- Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/ SD/. A SISTANT .J STRAR SECTION OFFICER of Telangana at N), loPUCl SOLICITOR GENERAL OF

1. Two CCs to GP FOR HOtvlE, High Court for the Hyderabad. [OUT]

2. Oire CC to SRI V.fUnOnU (PARTY-IN-PERSO 5. One CC to M/s. S.VANI, Advocate iolggl.-. . ;. on; cc to sRl N.BHUJANGA RAo, DEPUTY 5. Two CD CoPies lNDIA, Advocate IOPUC] SA TKS Rtc\. tI ,tt HIGH COURT DATED:25l0812025 ORDER WP.No.21583 ot 2013 11 3 L.r iilfr {. ,:-, ''*' A'Al i:: DISMISSING THE W.P AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS. ,p-\ rt I >9