APHC010077002024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 4244 OF 2024 Between: 1. Sengala Lakshmi Naresh,, S/o. Shankar Rao, Aged 31 years, Occ- Software Engineer, R/o. 10-59-1 A, Roynagar, Gannavaram, Krishna District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Govemment,Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. Superintendent of Police, Krishna District. 3. The Station House Officer, Chevendra Police Station, Chevendra Village, Pedana Mandal, Krishna District. 4. Gudivada Anusha, W/o. Sengala Lakshmi Naresh, Aged 29 years, Occ- Software Engineer, R/o. Chevendra Village, Pedana Mandal, Krishna District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents particularly 3rd respondent at the instance of 4th respondent in sending police constables repeatedly to the petitioner workplace and insisting him to appear before his authority alleging that 4th respondent filed Section 498A case against him and yield to the terms of 4th respondent, without there being any authority or sanction of law is illegal, irregular, irrational and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent not to interfere in any manner with his personal life and liberty nor insist him to appear before them and yield to the terms of the 4th respondent and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner personal life and liberty nor visit his work place nor insist him to yield to the terms of the 4* respondent, pending disposal of main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO:4244 OF 2024 The Court made the following order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents particularly 3rd respondent at the instance of 4th respondent in sending police constables repeatedly to the petitioner workplace and insisting him to appear before his authority alleging that 4th respondent filed Section 498-A case against him and yield to the terms of 4th respondent, without there being any authority or sanction of law is illegal, irregular, irrational and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent not to interfere in any manner with his personal life and liberty nor insist him to appear before them and yield to the terms of the 4th respondent and pass such other order or orders…” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner also heard Sri. P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent Nos.2 and 3, at the instance of respondent No.4, are sending police constables repeatedly to the petitioner’s workplace and insisting him to appear before 0his authority alleging that respondent No.4 filed Section 498-A case against him. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that basing on the contents of the complaint of the respondent No.4, the matter is related to family disputes and therefore, both parties are called to the police station for family counseling, later, both the parties were compromised before their parents. The allegations leveled against the respondent police are false and baseless, police never interfered with the family disputes as alleged by the petitioner. 5. Recording the above submissions, the writ petition is disposed of. However, police are directed not to interfere in family disputes except under due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:16.12.2025 Ksj