Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 01-09-2022 Date of uploading : 02-09-2022 APHC010522912022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM WRIT PETITION NO: 31990 OF 2022 Between: Sridhara Surendra Babu, S/o Sridhara Subramanayam, Aged 44 years R/o Flat no.102, Shree sai homes apartment, N.G.O Colony, Kadapa Town. ...Petitioner AND 1.The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home Affairs Velagapudi Village, Amaravathi. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa District 3. The Station House officer, Women (Disha) Police Station, Kadapa, Kadapa District. 4. K V N L Bharati, W/o. Sridhara Surendra, Aged 40 years, House no. 16-11-419/1, Tirumavala tower, Flat No. 202, Moosarambhag, Hyderabad. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: ARUN SHOWRI G Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents: V V N NARASIMHAM The Court made the following order: 2 SUN, J WP_31990_2022 THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM WRIT PETITION No.31990 OF 2022 ORDER: This writ petition is filed to direct the respondents not to threaten and interfere with the matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and 4th respondent and not to insist the petitioner to handover the custody of their children to the 4th respondent, except in accordance with law. 2. Case of the petitioner is thus: The marriage of the petitioner and 4th respondent was solemnized in the year 2014 and it is a second marriage for both the petitioner and 4th respondent. Out of their lawful wedlock, they blessed with two children. Due to matrimonial disputes, respondent No.4 gave report in C.C. No.55 of 2020 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge, XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, she also filed a habeas corpus petition in W.P. No.2679 of 2020 before the High Court of Telangana for custody of children and also filed G.W.O.P. No.28 of 2020 on the file of Hon’ble Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar. Thereafter, petitioner and respondent No.4 settled their disputes and he paid huge amounts towards permanent alimony. Even after settlement, respondent No.4 has been harassing the petitioner and their children and she also harassed the parents of the petitioner. As such they filed private complaint and another crime is also registered against respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 also gave report in crime No.13 of 2022. Under the guise of the said case the 3 SUN, J WP_31990_2022 respondent police have been insisting the presence of the children and has been harassing the petitioner. 3. Respondent No.4 also filed counter refuting the averments made in the petition, wherein, interalia admitted about the pendency of cases which were arose out of matrimonial disputes and other allied aspects and further stated that petitioner and his family members harassed her, took the custody of children and due to unbearable harassment, she escaped from the hands of the petitioner and requested to vacate the interim order dated 28.09.2022. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that feeling aggrieved by the registration of crime No.13 of 2022, petitioner preferred Crl.P. No.7762 of 2022 to quash the proceedings in the said crime and obtained interim stay of all further proceedings and further, respondent No.3 never interfered with the civil and matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.4 and at no point of time insisted the presence of the children except serving notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C on the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and learned counsel for respondent No.4. 6. Admittedly, there are civil and matrimonial disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.4. In this regard, it is to be mentioned that it is well settled that police cannot interfere in civil disputes and the Hon’ble Apex Court repeatedly held that when the dispute is purely of civil nature, 4 SUN, J WP_31990_2022 jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be exercised and further, when the dispute between two citizens is of civil nature and no crime is registered, police have no jurisdiction to interfere in the civil dispute. It is also settled that in the scheme of Constitution of India, duty to resolve civil dispute is entrusted to judiciary and police have no such power and involvement of police in a pending civil dispute or potential civil dispute between two citizens or two groups of citizens is not within the provisions of the police. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that she has filed interlocutory application seeking visitation rights and the same is pending before the District Court and being mother she has right to see the children. The said argument has to be advanced before the Court concerned as this petition is filed by the petitioner seeking relief against the police for interfering in the civil and matrimonial disputes. 8. As per the version of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, respondent No.3 police has not been interfering in the civil and matrimonial disputes which are pending between the petitioner and respondent No.4 and they never insisted for the presence of the children. So this Court is of the considered view that without touching the merits of the case, contentions raised by both parties and since respondent No.3 has filed counter stating that they are not interfering in the civil and matrimonial disputes of the petitioner and respondent No.4, this writ petition may be disposed of directing the respondents 1 to 3 not to interfere with the civil and matrimonial disputes of 5 SUN, J WP_31990_2022 the petitioners and respondent No.4 except in accordance with law and shall not insist for the presence of the children. 9. In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to interfere with the matrimonial disputes pending between the petitioner and respondent No.4 except in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM, J 01.09.2026 knl