Dr. Venkavalaoati Venkateshwara Prasad, S/o v. Krishnaiah Naidu, ag

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal . Secretary, Department of Home,. Dr.B.R.Ambe-dkar T.S. Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad City, Gachibowli, Cyberabad- Hyderabad. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Command Control, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The Station House fficer, (The Assistant Commissioner of Police) WCO Team X, Central Crime Station, CCS, DD Hyderabad. The Station House Officer, Raidurgam Police Station, Cyberabad Commissonerate, Raidurgam, Ranga Reddy District. Mr. Bollineni Krishnaiah, S/o Ramanaiah Naidu, aged about B0.y.egrs, .Oc9 Ausiness, R/o.H.No.8-2-546/2, Road No7, BanjaraHills, Hyclerabad- Telangana-500034 Dr_Venkavalaoati HemaMalini, wo. Dr. Venkayalapati venkateshwara Prasad A;"-J ;b6nt "50 veirs, oc6 Radiologist, R/o.Plot No.179, Road No15, J;bileeHills, Hyderhbad. Telangana-500034.. Dr. Venkavalaoati Venkateshwara Prasad, S/o. V. Krishnaiah Naidu, ag..ed ;;;ri;ii;6;;.:cim i.oiiiilcian, Rl/o. Plot No. 17e, Road No 15, Jubilee Hills' Hyderabad, Teiangana-500034. B. Suiata, Wo. B.Krishnaiah, aged about J0 years Occ Housewife' -ni".E].Gti-z:i+612, ndao No7, i3aniara Hills, Hvderabad-Telangana-500034 ...RESPONDENTS Petitior 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 HABEAS CORPUS to issue appropriate directions i.e., A) to direct the official respondents to produce the elder daughter of the petitioner namely Bollineni Krishna Vaishnavi, who is in illegal custody and detention in the hands of respondents 7 and 8, and produce before this Honourable Court, B) to direct the official respondents to get the DNA of the B.Krishna Vaishnavi to ascertain that the petitioner's elder daughter from the appropriate medical authority and to produce the same before this Honourable Court. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M.A.SHAKEEL Counsel for thr: Respondents No.lto5 : SRI T.RAV! KUMAR, ASST.GP rep., THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for ther Respondents No.6to9 : SRI PATTABHI VEMULAPATI, Sr.Counsel The Court made the following: ORDER t i THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR 70F Mr. M.A. Shakeel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. 'l'. Ravi Kumar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent Nos. I to 5. Mr. pattabhi Vemulapati, learned Scnior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.6 to 9. glBpER: (t)er t{on'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharva} i. The petitioner claims to be the mother of the alleged detenue and seeks production of the alleged detenue who is her daughter/ second child, who is iltegally detained by the respondent Nos.7 and 8 (relatives of the respondent No.6). 1'he petitioner also claims to be the wife of the respondent No.6.

2. I.earned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos-6 to t however submits that the petitioner and the respondent No-6 were in a live-in relationship and the respondent No.6 is presently married to another Person.

3. Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner and the respondent No.6 had three children. The first and second child i.e., a boy and a girl (alleged detenue) were voluntarily given by the 2 petitioner to the respondent No.6. The third child is staying with the petitio:eer/mother. 'lhe male child/first child was brought up by the respondent Nos.6 and 9 and the second child (alleged detenue) was brough t up by the respondent Nos.7 and 8.

4. The male child and the alleged detenue have been with the responrlent No.6/his relatives since 17 years.

5. The court is informcd that the allegcd detenue is norv i9 years oi agc and is a resident ol' the United stzrtes of America (USA), more specifically er str-rdent at the Fclrdham University, ip New Yclrk City, US|A.

6. 'Ihere are several questions regarding the maintainability of the writ Petition for writ of t{abeas corpus. First and foremost, the alleged cletenue is an adult who is more than 19 years of age. Hence, the Court can certainly not issue any direction for the production of the alle5led detenue since she is capable to decide whether she intends r-o stay with the petitioner or the respondent Nos.7 ancl g. Second, t.he alleged detenue is presently staying in the usA. several documents have been placed belbre us to corroborate this submissittn. I{ence, forcing t.he alleged detenue to travel to India only for the satisfaction of the petitioner's wish would be unnecessary ancl unreason;rble. Third, the petitioner has also sought for DNA test of .) the respondent No.6. The Court fails to understand the implication ofthisprayer,particularlyinaWritofHabeasCorpus'Fourth'the exchange of mails/letters between the petitioner and the alleged detenue woulcl also show that the petitioner has other avenues open to her to persuade the alleged detenue to resume contact with the pettttoner The writ petiti<ln does not fulfill any of the requirements for 7. issuance of a writ of t-labeas corpus on the respondents' This is not onlyaprivatedisputcbctweenthepetitionerandtherespondentNo.6 butalsoacasewheretlreCourtcannotcompelanadultpersontobe procluced in court in a writ for Habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India' 8 W.P.No.3 1787 of.2025, along with all connected applications' is accordinglY dismissed' 9 There shatl be no order as to costs' SD/. A.H.S. GOWRI ISTANT KAR STRAR /TRUE COPY// To, 1 The Principal SecretlU, DepartTgn-lof Home'' Dr s"ir"iJriri, State of Telangana, Hyderabad' SECTION OFFICER kar T.S

2. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad City, Gachibowli, Cyberabad- Hyderabad Hills, HYderabad.

3. The commissioner of Police, Hyderabad city, command control' Banjara he Assistant Commissioner of Police) WCO n, CCS, DD HYderabad.

4. The Station House Officer, (.Tl Team X, Central Crime Statio The Station House officer, Raidurgam Police Station, Cyberabad il;;ffi n"i"t",-niid u rg'am, Ranga Red dy District' One CC to SRI M.A.SHAKEEL, Advocate' [OPUC] 6 5

7. Two cos to THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

8. One C() to SRI PATTABHI VEIVIULAPAT|, Advocate. tOpUCl 9. Two CD Copies. t BSK GJP AIT HIGH COIURT DATED i2711012025 I HEI S I,i f ,.' 't ci (1 L) [ 3 f it 2ii,ii ? )- ( * }\ ORDER WP.No.31787 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUIT COSTS p{ 2s\,\zo