APHC010646412025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 33497/2025 Between: 1. MAHANTHU RAJA RAM SINGH, S/O NEHRUJI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS DEPARTMENTAL OFFICER, ANDHRA PRADESH GRAMEENA BANK SIRIGIRIPADU BRANCH, PALANADU DISTRICT R/O. PLOT NO. 40/A, SAIRAM TOWNSHIP-2 SAINAGAR 4TH LINE, NARASARAOPET PALANADU DISTRICT. 2. SMT. MOHAN DAS SHARMILA BAI, W/O NEHRUJI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS HOUSEWIFE, R/O NARASARAOPET PALANADU DISTRICT. 3. NEHRUJI SINGH MOHANDAS, S/O MOHAN DAS, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS NO AVOCATION, R/O NARASARAOPET PALANADU DISTRICT. 4. SMT. MAHANTH PADMAVATHI, W/O MUDAVATH PRATHAP SINGH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE R/O HIMAGIRI COLONY, D.V.K ROAD, NALGONDA. 5. MUDAVATH PRATHAP SINGH, S/O CHANDER SINGH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS PHARMACIST, TELANGANA STATE GOVERNMENT HEALTH DEPARTMENT R/O. HIMAGIRI COLONY, D.V.K ROAD, NALGONDA. 6. SMT. MAHANTH ANJANI BAI, W/O MANGA GOPI RAJU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT NARASARAOPET, PALANADU DISTRICT. 7. MANGA GOPI RAJU, S/O CHENNIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS WORKING IN TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT R/O NARASARAOPET, PALANADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PAIANADU DISTRICT. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NARSORAOPET RURAL POLICE STATION PAIANADU DISTRICT. PET PAIANADU DISTRICT. 4. SMT KUMBHA SIVA NAGA SUKANAYA, W/O MAHANTHU RAJA RAM SINGH R/O. CEMENT BRICKS LINE, NARASARAO ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. NANDIREDDY VISHNU VARDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 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, One in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Wirt, Direction or Order declaring the action of the respondent 3 interfering with the family disputes (civil disputes) and threatening the petitioner to withdraw HMOP filed by the petitioner. The respondent has openly proclaimed that failing such withdrawal, they will falsely implicate me in criminal cases which is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 19 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent 3 not to interfere with the life and personal liberty of the petitioners, and not to interfere with the Matrimonial Disputes between petitioner and the 4th Respondent” 2. Heard Sri N.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that on the complaint made by respondent No.4, the petitioners were called to the police station for family counseling. Except that, the police never insisted the petitioners to withdraw the divorce petition. 4. Recording the said submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:10.12.2025 Asr 3 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.33497 of 2025 Dt.10.12.2025 Asr