IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH ^ I TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE | PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3525 OF 2025 Between: Jarugula Lakshmi Narayana, S/o. Jarugula Brahmaiah, aged about 36 years R/o. D.No. 2-150, Gangavaram Post, Inkollu Mandal, now Bapatia District, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Director General of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Police Headquarters, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, A.P. 3. The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Ongole, Prakasam District, A.P. 4. The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Prakasam Road, NearTanishq Jewellery, Balaji Colony, Tirupati, Tirupati District, A.P. 5. Kalyani Bellam, W/o. Bellam Bhakthaiah, aged about 40 years, R/o. D.No.14-83, Uppugundur Village, N.G.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District, A.P., 6. Balineni Jyotsna @ Sai Roopa, W/o. Konipatti Venkateswarlu, aged about 42 years, R/o. D.No. 1-4-494/7, Shalivahana Nagar, Tirupati Urban, Tirupati District, A.P., now residing at Flat No.202, Sri Sai Residency, Madhura Nagar, Tirupati, Tirupati District, A.P. ...RESPONDENTS At Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court ,be pleased to issue any Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the 'nature of WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS directing the Official Respondent if « authorities to handover the physical possession of minor child namely Jarugula Suryaansh, aged 4 years who is presently in the custody of Unofficial Respondent No.6 residing at Tirupathi, Tirupati District to the custody of Petitioner who is the father and natural guardian. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to pass an interim order by granting interim custody of minor child namely Jarugula Suryaansh to the Petitioner who is the father and natural guardian, until disposal of the above Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 to pass an interim order by directing the Official Respondent authorities to produce the minor child namely Jarugula Suryaansh before this Flon’ble Fligh Court, until disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO NARRA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.5:- Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI VENKAT SAILENDRA.G The Court made the following: ORDER ■.Jr, >’■ o' y: t may *4? y., f. APHC010066822025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMAD^A RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3525/2025 Between; ...PETITIONER Jarugula Lakshmi Narayana AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASA RAO NARRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.VENKATSAILENDRAG 2.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following Order: (perHon'ble Sn Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner was married to one Smt.Priyanka, and they have a child Master J.Suryansh, born on 16.01.2021. The petitioner states that the wife of the petitioner left for higher education in the United States of America on 21.12.2022, and the child was 2. 2 initially with the petitioner. However, in the year 2023, the step mother of his wife, namely respondent No.5 had taken away the child and subsequently handed over the child to the natural mother of his wife, namely respondent No.6. The petitioner has now approached this Court by way of Writ of a Habeas Corpus, contending that the custody of respondents 5 and 6 over his minor child is illegal and that a Writ of Habeas Corpus requires to be issued in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tejaswini Gaud and others vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and others^ 3. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Tejaswini Gaud and others’s case 4. (stated supra) held as follows: “33. As observed in Rosy Jacobi 1 earlier, the father's fitness has to be considered, determined and weighed predominantly in terms of the welfare of his minor children In the context of all the relevant circumstances. The welfare of the child shall include various factors like ethical upbringing, economic well-being of the guardian, child's ordinary comfort, contentment, health, edudation etc.... 35 ,.lf no custody Is granted to the first respondent, the court would be depriving both the child and the father of each other’s love and affection to which they are entitled. As the child Is in tender age i.e. VA years, her choice cannot be ascertained at this stage. With the passage of time, she might develop more bonding with the appellants and after some time, she may be reluctant to go to her father In which case, the first respondent might be completely deprived of her child’s love and affection. Keeping in view the welfare of the child and the right of the father to have her custody and after consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the High Court was right in holding that the welfare of the child will be best served by handing over the custody of the child to the first respondent. ’’ ^ Criminal Appeal No.838 of 2019 I 3 The respondent No.6 has filed a counter affidavit setting out a different version of facts. According to the respondent No.6, the child was in the custody of the mother and resided in the house of respondent No.6 since his birth, and that the petitioner would occasionally visit them. It is further contended that that in view of the various debts incurred by the petitioner, the respondent No.6 did not encourage his visits to the house. It is also contended that the petitioner is now seeking custody of the child to pressurize respondent No.6 to discharge the debts of the petitioner. 5. We do not want to go into these allegations and counter 6. allegations made by both sides. A petition for Habeas Corpus would be entertained by this Court where there is illegal custody of the child, and the child needs to be taken out of such illegal custody. 7. V In the present case, even according to the petitioner, the child has been with respondent Nos.5 and 6 since 2023. The question of how respondent Nos.5 and 6 got custody of the child, is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court, in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy of approaching the Family Court/Court of competent civil jurisdiction to seek 9. 4 custody of the child, and the same would be considered by the Court, after giving notice to respondent Nos.5 and 6. It would be necessary to note that the Civil Court/Family Court would be the appropriate place for a determination of facts as to which version of facts set out by either side is correct and what would be in the best interest of the child. 10. For all the aforesaid reasons, we decline to entertain this writ petition. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail his remedy according to law. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-B.PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. OneCCto Sri Srinivasa Rao Narra, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to The Advocate General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3. One CC to Sri Venkat Sailendra.G, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies. gi HIGH COURT DATED:04/03/2025 ORDER t 28 MAR 2025 i ^ . Current Section WP.No.3525 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS