APHC010541882025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3558] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.27962 of 2025 Between: 1. ZEENATH KHAN, C/O MAGDUM KHAN RAJA, AGE 31 YEARS, R/O H.No.12-18-122, 6TH WARD, BESIDE VINAYAKA TEMPLE MAIN ROAD, VTC REPALLE, REPAILE SUB DISTRICT, BAPATIA DISTRICT- 522265. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT D.No.6-10-48/a, SRUNGARAPURAM STREET, 15TH WARD, BAPATLA TOWN, BAPATLA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. O/o. DGP, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522502. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BAPATLA TOWN P.S, BAPATLA. 5. MAGDUM KHAN @ RAJA, S/O AHMAD JANI KHAN, AGE 35 YEARS, R/o D.No.12-18-122, MAIN ROAD, BESIDE VINAYAKA 2 TEMPLE, MAIN ROAD, REPALLE TOWN, BAPATLA DISTRICT- 522265. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAVI TEJA GUDE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KALE VIJAYA RAJU 2. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.27962 of 2025 O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) The petitioner, who is the wife of the 5th respondent, has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus to respondent Nos.2 to 4, who are police officials, to produce her minor children, by name (1) Shayan Khan, aged about 8 years, (2) Shifa Khan, aged about 5 years and (3) Shaheer Khan, aged about 3 years, before the Court and to give their custody to her. 2. Heard Ms. Shaik Shahedaz, learned counsel representing Mr. Ravi Teja Gude, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, and Mr. K. Vijaya Raju, learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 3. The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the 5th respondent. They begot three children by name Shayan Khan, Shifa Khan and Shaheer Khan, during their lawful wedlock. All the three children are minors at present. Some disputes arose between the petitioner and the 5th respondent. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent and 4 his family members attempted to stab her with a knife on 30.08.2025 and as there was a threat to her life, she was constrained to leave the matrimonial home on the early hours of 31.08.2025, leaving the three minor children in the house of the 5th respondent. On the report lodged by her, a crime was also registered in Crime No.331 of 2025 in Bapatla II Town Police Station. It is her apprehension that the 5th respondent has been practicing black magic on her minor children and there is no safety to her minor children in his custody. Pleading the said facts and other facts which are not much germane to consider this writ petition, the petitioner sought the aforesaid relief in the writ petition. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits, on instructions, that there are matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and the 5th respondent and the children are now in the custody of the 5th respondent and a crime was also registered against the 5th respondent on the report lodged by the petitioner and the same is under investigation. He would submit that the 5th respondent has been pursuing his lawful remedy in the concerned civil Court and that the present writ petition is not maintainable. 5. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent submits that the petitioner herself has voluntarily left the house of the 5th respondent, leaving the minor children in his custody, and the 5th respondent is 5 taking care of the minor children and they are safe in his custody. He further submits that, at the instance of the petitioner, the police are insisting the 5th respondent to give the custody of the minor children to the petitioner. In view of the said interference of the police at the instance of the petitioner, the 5th respondent has already filed a Guardian O.P. in G.O.P.No.1453 of 2025 on the file of Principal District Court, Guntur, which has been made over to the Additional District Court, Tenali, and the same is pending disposal before the said Court. He submits that as the children are not illegally detained or confined and as they are in the custody of the father and natural guardian, this writ petition for writ of Habeas Corpus is not maintainable, and prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6. In reply to the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier, the 5th respondent has agreed to show the children to the petitioner once in a week, but he is not adhering to the terms of the said bind-over made before the police. She further submits that as the petitioner is unable to see her children, she was constrained to file the present writ petition. 7. Admittedly, even as per the case pleaded by the petitioner at para No.5 of the writ petition, she herself left the matrimonial home and has been living separately from her husband/5th respondent herein, leaving the three minor children in the custody of the 5th respondent. 6 Although she has pleaded that on 30.08.2025, the 5th respondent and his family members attempted to stab her with a knife, and apprehending danger to her life, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home in the early hours of 31.08.2025 without informing anyone leaving her three minor children in the said house, it is a disputed question of fact, which is to be adjudicated in the crime registered by the police on the report lodged by her. Therefore, we are not inclined to enter into the said disputed question of fact relating to the said allegation made by the petitioner. However, the fact that remains established on her own admission made at para No.5 of the writ petition is that she herself left the matrimonial home voluntarily and left the children in the custody of the 5th respondent. Therefore, admittedly, it is not a case where the 5th respondent has taken away the children by force or illegally from the custody of the petitioner. As she left them in the matrimonial home and went away from the house, the children are now in the custody of the 5th respondent, who is also their father and natural guardian. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, when there is no allegation of any illegal detention or confinement of the children either by the 5th respondent or his family members, the writ petition for writ of Habeas Corpus is not maintainable. 8. If the petitioner, as a mother, intends to have custody of her minor children and if she is so entitled, she has to pursue her legal 7 remedy in the competent civil Court. She cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and seek a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Further, the 5th respondent, who is her husband, has already filed a Guardian O.P. in the competent Court and the same is pending adjudication. Therefore, both the parties have to work out their rights relating to the custody of the children in the competent Court and they cannot seek resolution of the said dispute relating to their entitlement of the custody of the children in this writ petition. We make it clear that we are not deciding anything in this writ petition regarding the entitlement of the custody of the children either by the petitioner or the 5th respondent. It is left open to them to seek redressal of their grievance in this regard in the competent civil Court. 9. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue her lawful remedy in the competent civil Court. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, in this case shall stand closed. ________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY ______________________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 28.10.2025 IBL 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION No.27962 of 2025 Dt: 28.10.2025 IBL