HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI Main Case No: Crl.P.No.7447 of 2026 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No. Date ORDER OFFICE NOTE 02. 01.09.2026 MRK,J 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner asserts that the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.4 in C.C.No.368 of 2025 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Tenali and she is facing charges under Sections 324(4), 351(2) and 79 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. She further submits that the petitioner’s son is a citizen of Canada and has secured admission to a reputed educational institution in Canada. Therefore, the petitioner, being his mother, is required to accompany her son to Canada. 4. In that process, petitioner herein filed Crl.M.P.No.3020 of 2026 in C.C.No.368 of ::2:: 2025 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Tenali seeking permission to travel to Canada, for her son’s University Admission and for accompanying her children. 5. She submits that, though the said petition was filed on 12.08.2026, the same is still pending adjudication and has not yet been finally disposed of. 6. She further elaborates that, as per the Academic Calendar–2026 issued by Western University, Canada, the admission process is scheduled to commence from 08.09.2026 onwards. Therefore, the petitioner’s son is required to travel to Canada to pursue his education and being his mother, petitioner seeks to accompany him. It is contended that the petitioner’s right to travel to accompany her son for his education is an integral facet of her right to life and personal liberty. ::3:: 7. It is well-settled principle, as articulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases, that the right to travel abroad is an integral part of the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. In Satish Chandra Verma vs. Union of India and others1 Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “5. The right to travel abroad is an important basic human right for it nourishes independent and self- determining creative character of the individual, not only by extending his freedoms of action, but also by extending the scope of his experience. The right also extends to private life; marriage, family and friendship are humanities which can be rarely affected through refusal of freedom to go abroad and clearly show that this freedom is a genuine human right. (See: Mrs. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248). In the said judgment, there is a reference to the words of Justice Douglas in Kent vs. Dulles 357 US 116 (1958) which are as follows: “Freedom to go abroad has much social value and represents the basic human right of great significance.” 1 2019 SCC OnLine SC 2048 ::4:: 9. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Tenali, is hereby directed to dispose of Crl.M.P.No.3020 of 2026 in C.C.No.368 of 2025, within a period of two days from today. 10. List on 15.09.2026. ______ MRK,J NOTE: Issue CC by 01.09.2026. B/o. KRK