Mudunuru Vijaya Ramaraju vs The State Of Telangana , And 3 ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1633 Tel

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

                                    AND

             HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

                    Writ Petition No.5839 of 2021

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice A.Rajasheker Reddy)

       This Writ Petition is filed seeking writ of habeas corpus directing

the respondents to produce the petitioner's minor daughter Mudunuru

Hansika D/o.Mudunuru Vijayaramaraju and consequently to order

custody of the minor daughter to the petitioner.

Heard Sri Pappu Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Sri T.Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader for

Home appearing for respondents 1 to 3 & 5 and Sri Nanduri Sriram,

learned counsel for the 4th respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father is the

custodian of the detenue and being father, he is entitled for custody of

the child. He submits that the mother, who is not in sound state of

mind has made contradictory statements one before the police and

another in the counter affidavit and it is not in the best interest of the

detenue to keep her in the custody of the respondent/mother. He

submits that the petitioner is biological father of the detenue child as

such, petitioner cannot be deprived of the custody of the child,

especially in the present circumstances prevailing and also considering

the state of mind of the respondent/wife. In support of his contention,

he relied on the judgment reported in Tejaswani Gaud v. Shekhar

Jagdish Prasad Tewari [2019 AIR SC 2318].

However, he does not dispute that the petitioner has alternate

remedy of approaching Family Court, but submits that some interim

arrangement should be made before approaching the Family Court.

He also submits that the writ petition is prerogative and extraordinary

remedy available to a citizen and that can be invoked by this Court in

the facts and circumstances of the case.

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Home

appearing for learned Advocate General submits that the issue in the

writ petition is essentially a dispute between the petitioner/husband

and respondent No.4/wife and they have alternate remedy before the

Family Court.

Sri Nanduri Sriram, learned counsel for the 4th respondent/wife

submits that the petitioner is not the biological father of the

detenue/child and that is why the petitioner cannot seek custody by

way of habeas corpus petition as the petitioner has effective alternate

remedy. He also submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as

disputed questions of facts are involved, which cannot be effectively

decided in the writ petition by exercising the extraordinary power of

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In this case, it is to be seen that the learned counsel for the 4th

respondent/wife seriously disputed about the paternity basing on the

counter affidavit, which is a purely a question of fact and same cannot

be decided in the writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of

India. When the petitioner has efficacious alternate remedy available

before the Family Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ

petition and that no extraordinary circumstances brought before this

Court for entertaining the writ petition.

In view of above facts and circumstances, without expressing any

opinion on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of

granting liberty to the petitioner to avail alternate remedy before the

Family Court and it is for him to obtain interim or final orders, if he is

so advised.

There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto,

miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand

closed.

__________________________

A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

__________________________

DR.SHAMEEM AKTHER, J Date:14.06.2021

kvs