1 APHC010061362026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3688/2026 Between: Maheshwaram Sandeep Raj ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No 5 in interfering into the life and liberty of the petitioner and interfering with the matrimonial disputes and detaining the petitioner and threating to pay an amount of Rs 2 Crores to the respondent No 6 on the name of compensation and threatening to give the divorce to the respondent No 6 without having any jurisdiction is highly illegal arbitrary unconstitutional violation of Articles 14 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No 5 not to interfere into the life and liberty of the petitioner and not to interfere with the matrimonial disputes not to detain the petitioner threating to pay an amount of Rs 2 Crores to the 2 respondent No 6 on the name of compensation and not to threaten to give the divorce to the respondent No 6 and pass other order(s)….” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is being unnecessarily called to Respondent No. 5 Police Station at the behest of the 6th respondent, and that the police are interfering in what is purely a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the 6th respondent. 4. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, submits that Respondent No. 6 lodged a complaint against the petitioner, which was registered as Crime No.1232 of 2025 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 5 called both the petitioner and Respondent No. 6 to the police station for the purpose of counselling. 6. This Court, in Jalla Balaji v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 observed that the Legal Services Authorities constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act alone are vested with the authority to facilitate settlement of matrimonial or other disputes pending between parties. Even assuming that there exist matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and Respondent No.6, Respondent No.5 ought to have relegated the parties to mediation or Lok Adalat instead of intervening at the police station. 1 2026 SCC OnLine AP 409 3 7. The petitioner is a neurosurgeon and Respondent No. 6 is a dental doctor. When both parties belong to noble professions, the police ought not to adopt coercive or arm-twisting methods to compel them to enter into negotiations or settlement. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and recording the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, Respondent No. 5 is directed not to interfere in the matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and Respondent No. 6. However, it is made clear that Respondent No. 5 is at liberty to refer the parties to the Mandal Legal Services Authority or the District Legal Services Authority for appropriate mediation or settlement in accordance with law. 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 17.02.2026 KMS 4 319 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.3688 of 2026 Date: 17.02.2026 KMS