I g * APHC010100962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 5160 OF 2025 Between: Lakkoju Srinivasa Rao„ S/o. Kesava Rao, Aged about 35 years, R/o. D.No.1-1, Jagannadhapuram Village, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Amaravathi, Guntur Department, A.P. Secretariat at Velagapudi, District 2. The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District, Bhimavaram 3. The Station House Officer, Tadepalligudem Rural Police Station West Godavari District 4. Meduri Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Seshacharyulu, Aged about 55 years, R/o. Housing Board Colony, Simhadripuram, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam City 5. Smt Meduri Kumari, W/o. Meduri Srinivasa Rao, Aged about 46 years. Housing Board Colony, Simhadripuram, H.No.55-40-72, R/o. H.No.55-40-72, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam City ...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 «r pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the Respondents to produce the mnor Children, namely Lakkoju Lishant Naga Surya and Lakkoju Banvika Surya Sri, before this Honourable Court and handover their custody to me. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PRASAD ALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5: SRI K RAMBABU The Court made the following order: APHC010100962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) p [3541] V MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO; 5160/2025 Between: 1.LAKKOJU SRINIVASA RAO,, S/0. KESAVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/0. D.NO.1-1 TADEPALLIGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT JAGANNADHAPURAM VILLAGE ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, BHIMAVARAM 3.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TADEPALLIGUDEM RURAL POLICE STATION WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 4.MEDURI SRINIVASA RAO, . S/0. SESHACHARYULU, AGED ABOUT HOUSING BOARD COLONY, 55 YEARS, R/0. H.NO.55-40-72 SIMHADRIPURAM, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY 5.SMT MEDURI KUMARI, W/O. MEDURI SRINIVASA RAO HOUSING BOARD SEETHAMMADHARA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/0. H.NO.55-40-72 COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY SIMHADRIPURAM, 2 RRR, J&JSJ W.P.No.5160of 2025 * ...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 tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the Respondents to produce the Minor Children, namely Lakkoju Lishant Naga Surya and Lakkoju Banvika Surya Sri, before this Honourable Court and handover their custody to me and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PRASAD ALAPATl Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V SATYANARAYANA NEKKANTI 2.THE ADVOCATE GENERAL I 3 RRR, J&JS,J W.P.No.5160of2025 The Court made the following order: (perHon’ble Sh Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner herein has moved the present Writ Petition for a direction to the respondents to produce his two children, who are said to be in the custody of his father-in-law and mother-in-law (who are arrayed as respondents 4 & 5 in the present Writ Petition). The case of the petitioner is that his wife had died under 2. mysterious circumstance on 28.04.2024, when he was in Saudi Arabia and that he had returned immediately on 30.04.2024. By this time, both his children are said to have been taken away by their maternal grandparents. The petitioner, in fact contends that, they were forcibly taken away by respondents 4 & 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that 3. certain properties had also been transferred in the name of the children to assure the respondents 4 & 5 that proper care would be taken in relation to the children and that the children can be returned to the custody of the petitioner. It is further alleged that the properties were transferred solely on the ground that the respondents 4 & 5 had agreed to handover the custody of the children on such property being registered in the name of the children to safegaurd their financial security. The learned counsel also contends that both the petitioner’s children suffer from epilepsy and require constant medical care, vyhich is not being given to them. 4 RRR, J&JS,J W.P.No.5160of2025 The respondents 4 & 5 have filed a counter affidavit stating that their daughter, who was their only child, was murdered by the family members of the petitioner and that the petitioner was also complicit in the said homicide. »■ The respondents 4 & 5 have not indicated anywhere that they had agreed for handing over the custody of the children, on execution of immovable property in the name of the children. 4. 5. Heard Sri Alapati Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Rambabu, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 & 5. In view of the fact that there are disputed questions of fact and taking the peculiar circumtances of this case, namely the murder of the mother of the children, it would not be appropriate for this Court to arrive at any conclusion as to what would be beneficial for the children. It is settled law that it is the welfare of the children that comes first, and not the priority or the interests of the parents or their relatives. 6. 7. In this case, it would only be appropriate that the issue is taken up before an appropriate Court, which can go into the factual aspects and arrive at a decision as to what would be good for the children and whether it would be safe to give custody of the children to the petitioner herein. 8. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail of his remedies under law. There shall be no order as to costs. / 5 ‘>K RRR, J&JSJ W.P.No.5160 of 2025 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri. Prasad Alapati Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri. V Satyanarayana Nekkanti Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. K Rambabu Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to The Advocate General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED: 14/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 5160 OF 2025 ^2 8 JUL 2025 ^M^^jrrent SectjOjj..^^^ h. Co ' DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS