Shaik Babul Saheb v. 1. The State of Telangana

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 an appropriate writ. order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF HABEAUS CORPUS to direct the respondents to produce his wfe namely, Banoth Nandini alias Shaik Naziya, Dio Banoth Nageswara Rao. Aged about 25 years, Occ. Housewife, R:/o Anjanapuram Village, Morampally Banjara Grampanchayat, Burgampahad Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, before this Hon'ble Court and set her at liberty. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIK MADAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 4 : SRI SWAROOP OORILLA, SPECIAL G.P REP THE LEAR.NED ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel forthe Respondent No.S : - The Court made the following ORDER n R THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HOIT'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KT'MAR WRIT PETITION NO.247O4 OF 2025 ORDER: (Per Honlcle Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar)

1. Heard Sri Shaik Madar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, the learned Special Government Pleader representing the learned the Advocate General for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. The present Writ Petition is frled seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the petitioner's wife, namely, Banoth Nandini @ Shaik Naziya, aged about 25 years, R/o. Anjanapuram Village, Morampally Banjara Gram Panchayat, Burgampahad Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, before this Court and set her at liberty.

3. The petitioner contends that the petitioner and his wife (the alleged detenue) fell in love while they were studying B.Tech and married on 24.02.2025, as per Islamic rites and customs at a Masjid in Vallapuram Village, Nadigudem Mandal, Suryapet Disrrict. On 28.06.2025, at the request of the parents of the alleged detenue, the petitioner and the alleged detenue went to 2 \ Khammam, where the parents of the alleged detenue met them and took tJ:e alleged detenue to their village under the guise of festivals. The petitioner suspected foul play. On 29.06.2025, the petitioncr along with his mother and younger brotl-rer visited the house of the alleged detenue's parents and requested them to senC the alleged detenue back to their hcuse. However, the parents and sisters of the alleged detenue along with the villagers picked up a quarrel with them, refused to send the alleged cietenue back. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

4. This Court, on 2O.O8.2O25, directed the learned Special Government Pleader to produce the alleged detenue beforc this Court on 22.08.2025.

5. In compliance with the said order, tJre learned Special Government Pleader has produced the alieged detenue before this Court on 22.O8.2025. The proceedings were conducted 'In- Camera'. We have interacted separately with the alleged detenue, the petitioner, and the mother and sister-in-law of the alleged detenlre.

6. During the course of the interaction, the alleged detenuc stated that she fell in love with the petitioner about four years r! a 3 ago while they were pursuing their B.Tech course . and they married on 24.O2.2025. The alleged detenue further stated that her parents never forced her to stay at their house or marr5r another person, contrary to the petitioner's allegations. The alleged detenue voluntarily admitted that due to certain concerns regarding her husband, she wanted to stay with her parents for a while to give him some time to reform.

7. We have also interacted with the petitioner. During the course of interaction, the petitioner stated that he was disturbed since his wife is staying with her parents and not returning to their house, thereby instituted the instant writ petition. \

8. The mother and sister-in-law of the alleged detenue, L during the course of interaction, stated that they did not wish to interfere with the wishes of the alleged detenue and had never forced her against her will.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. The proceedings in a Writ of Habeas Corpus are summary in nature. Admittedly, the dispute between the petitioner and I 4 the alleged detenue appears to be a'family i,ssue, which cannot be adjudicated in a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Since both the petitioner and the alleged detenue are well-educated having pursued B.Tech, they arc at liberty to resolve their disputes arnicably for the welfare of their family.

11. In the absence of illegal detention, the Writ of Habeas Corpus is not maintainable. However, tJre petitioner is at liberty to avai-l appropriate legal remedies available in law.

12. Accordingly, W.P.No.24704 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// \ LAXMI S FFICER To 1 riat, State of The Principa I Secretary, Depdrtment of Home' Sec Telangana at Hyd erabad.

2. The Director Genera I Police, HYd erabad., State of Te ngana. 3. The SuPerinte ndent of Police, Bhadradri -Kothagudem District. 4. The Station House Officer, Burga mpahad Police Station' Uhadraori- 5. Two CC' ie General, High Court for the State of Telangana at AIK MADAR, Advocate [OPUCI Kothag udem Dist s to Advoca (our) SRI SH Hyderabad 6. One CC to 7. Two CD CoPies iS QA- ) s li, 31 [tI ?$zi I a .oEsoATCS H|GH COURT DATED:2 510812025 ORDER WP.No.24704 ot 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. \r \\