APHC010544802025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 28090/2025 Between: 1. NAKKA SAI SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O NAKKA BHASKARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O D.N0.1-254/G-1, PATIMIDA VILLAGE, CHAKRADEVARAPALLI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ELURU. 5. THE SUBDIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, JANGAREDDYGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, LAKKAVARAM POLICE STATION WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2 7. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, LAKKAVARAM POLICE STATION, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 8. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, JANGAREDDYGUDEM SUB-DIVISION, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 9. JUJJAVARAPU VIJAYA BHASKAR RAO, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/O TADIPATRI VILLAGE, UNDRAJAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 10. VAKALAPUDI NARSAIAH, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O THIPARRY VILLAGE, UNDRAJAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 11. VAKALAPUDI RAVI KUMAR, S/O VAKALAPUDI NARSAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O THIPARRY VILLAGE, UNDRAJAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 12. VAKALAPUDI SRI KRISHNA, S/O VAKALAPUDI NARSAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O THIPARRY VILLAGE, UNDRAJAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents herein to produce Smt. Jujjavarapu Uma Krishna Sri, D/o Jujjavarapu Vijaya Bhaskar Rao, presently under the illegal custody of Respondent Nos.9 to 12, before this Honble Court and set her at liberty, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PARIMI RAMA RAYUDU 2. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL 3 The Court made the following ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) This writ petition for Habeas Corpus has been filed by the writ petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent Nos.1 to 8 – police officials to produce the corpus by name Jujjavarapu Uma Krishna Sri, before the Court, who is said to have been in illegal custody of respondent Nos.9 to 12 and then to set her at liberty. 2. Heard Sri A.S.K.S.Bhargav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 8 and Sri K.Kedarnath Chowdary, learned counsel representing Sri Parimi Rama Rayudu, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents 9 to 12. 3. Brief overview of the facts of the case may be delineated as follows: According to the case pleaded by the petitioner, the corpus by name Jujjavarapu Uma Krishna Sri (hereinafter referred to as ‘corpus’) is his legally wedded wife. According to him, both of them were in love with each other and their marriage took place on 08.01.2025 at Dwaraka Tirumala Temple. It is stated that the said marriage took place against the wish of the father of the corpus who is respondent No.9. So, it is the case of the writ petitioner that in the month of March, 2025 that the corpus was forcibly taken away by respondent No.9 who is her father and since then, she is in his illegal custody and respondent Nos.10 and 11 who are the relatives of respondent No.9 4 cooperated him to take the corpus by force and keeping her in their illegal custody. It is stated that the petitioner had lodged a report before the police against respondent No.9 and others, but till now, the whereabouts of the corpus is not traced. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing this writ petition seeking the aforesaid relief. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, on written instructions submits that the marriage of the corpus was performed with respondent No.12, on 15.05.2025 and she has voluntarily with her free will and volition married him and thereafter, she left India for United Stated of America along with her husband – respondent No.12 and has been living in USA. The said written instructions are produced before the Court and they are taken on record. Copy of the marriage certificate pertaining to the marriage that took place between the corpus and respondent No.12 is also placed on record. From the aforesaid marriage certificate, it is evident that the marriage of the corpus with respondent No.12 took place on 15.05.2025 and the said marriage was also registered on 19.05.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents, on instructions submits that the corpus was not forcibly taken away by respondent No.9 as alleged in the writ petition and she was not illegally confined and she has been living with her husband, who is respondent No.12 with her free will and consent and leading a happy marital life. 5 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, countering the said argument, would submit that in fact, the marriage of the corpus initially took place with the petitioner on 08.01.2025 and it is prior marriage that took place between them in the village. He has also produced photographs of the said marriage before the Court. Therefore, he submits that the second marriage, if any, that has taken place on 15.05.2025, is not a valid marriage and it is a bigamous marriage. 7. From the aforesaid submissions made by both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, it is evident that the corpus has now married respondent No.12 and this marriage was also registered in the month of May, 2025 and she has been living in USA with him at present. The said fact is also conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner. So, it cannot be said that the corpus has been in illegal confinement or detention of unofficial respondents 9 to 12 so as to maintain this writ petition filed for Habeas Corpus. 8. If the petitioner got any grievance relating to the alleged bigamous marriage that was allegedly contracted by the corpus with respondent No.12, it is for him to take appropriate legal action against her as per law. 9. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Writ Petition is closed as it is not found that the corpus is in illegal detention or confinement of unofficial respondents 9 to 12. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to take appropriate legal action if he is aggrieved by the alleged bigamous marriage 6 said to have been contracted by the corpus with respondent No.12. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 25.11.2025 KA 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 28090/2025 Date: 25.11.2025 KA