Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7839 (AP)

Tupakula Lavanya v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/21270/2026 · 2026-08-06

Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi, Ravi Nath Tilhari

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010396602026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3601] FRIDAY, THE 7th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI WRIT PETITION NO: 21270/2026 Between: 1. TUPAKULA LAVANYA, W/O. SATYA SAL KUMAR, FEMALE, AGE 25 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.2-8-20, BUKKAPETA, PATTI MEEDA, NIDADAVOLE - EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 534301. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, NELAPADU, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522239 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM - 533105 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NIDADAVOLE TOWN POLICE STATION, NIDADAVOLE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 534301 4. TUPAKULA SATYA SAI KUMAR, S/O. APPA RAO, MALE, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.2-10-7/2, BAPUJI NAGAR, PATTI MEEDA, NIDADAVOLE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 534301. ...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 toissue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS for production of person of my elder minor son 2 RNT,J & PKC,J W.P.No.21270 of 2026 by name Tupakula Eeshan Karthik, aged about 5 years 4 months which is in the illegal custody of unofficial respondent/father, who is staying in the same street of petitioners house and consequently direct the Respondents 1 to 4 to take measures for protection of my elder sons life and liberty by granting visitation rights to the petitioner to see and interact with her minor elder son aged 5 years IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 direct the Respondents 1 to 4 to take measures for protection of my elder son’s life and liberty by granting visitation rights to the petitioner to see and interact with her minor elder son aged 5 years pending disposal of main writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KALLA TULASI DURGAMBA 2. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following Order: 3 RNT,J & PKC,J W.P.No.21270 of 2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI WRIT PETITION NO: 21270 OF 2026 ORDER: (per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J) On 31.07.2026, we passed the following order: “This writ petition has been filed by the mother for writ of habeas corpus seeking production of her elder son aged about 5 years in the custody of respondent No.4-father. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they both residing separately but in the same street. He further submits that younger son is with the mother and elder son is with the father but the father is not allowing the petitioner to meet elder son. 3. Let the petitioner and respondent No.4 appear before this Court on 07.08.2026. 4. Post on 07.08.2026. 5. On the next date of listing, the Court may consider to refer the parties to Mediation Centre.” 2. The petitioner is present along with her learned counsel namely Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao. The 4th respondent is also present along with his learned counsel namely Smt. Kalla Tulasi Durgamba. 3. The 4th respondent has come along with his child (son, aged about 5 years). The matter was taken up in the morning session and at that time, they expressed their willingness to live together. At their request, we granted time to interact with each other with the assistance of their 4 RNT,J & PKC,J W.P.No.21270 of 2026 respective learned counsel. They have appeared again when the matter was taken up and submitted that they want to live together with the child. 4. A joint memo to that effect has also been filed and the same reads as under: “It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent who are wife and husband have mutually agreed to live together at 4th respondent’s house. It is further agreed that the petitioner shall be permitted to visit her parents’ house during festivals and other occasions. At the same time, the petitioner’s parents also agreed to drop her at the 4th respondent’s house as per tradition on auspicious day. Both the parties are further agreed to live together happily with their children unconnected to either side of the family members without making any disturbances. Hence, this joint memo.” 5. Recording the same, this petition for Habeas Corpus stands disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J _____________________________________ PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI,J Dated: 07.08.2026 KPV 5 RNT,J & PKC,J W.P.No.21270 of 2026 161 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI WRIT PETITION NO: 21270/2026 Dated: 07.08.2026 KPV