Yasmeen Begum vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 388 Tel

Telangana High Court

Yasmeen Begum vs The State Of Telangana on 15 July, 2025

          THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
                                                 AND
             THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

                                    WP.NO.20038 OF 2025

Sri Sai Reddy Ravindar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner.


Sri Swaroop Oorilla, the learned Special Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General
appearing for respondent Nos.1-6.



JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

The petitioner claims to be the mother of the alleged detenue

who is 10 years old. The petitioner further claims that the detenue is

in the custody of the respondent No.7, who is the paternal

grand-father of the detenue from the petitioner's first marriage.

2. We have considered the written instructions placed by the

learned Special Government Pleader. The instructions states that the

petitioner was married to the son of the 7th respondent and gave birth

to the detenue on 14.11.2014. The son of the 7th respondent died on

31.05.2015. The petitioner got married again in 2017 and has a son

and a daughter out of her second marriage. The written instructions

further states that the detenue stayed with the petitioner in

Hyderabad till April after which the petitioner spoke to the

7th respondent and brought her daughter to the house of the 7th

respondent. The detenue is staying with the 7th respondent since

then and is studying in a local school.

MB,J & BRMR,J

3. We have seen the photographs placed by the learned Special

Government Pleader of the detenue with her paternal grand-father.

We do not find this to be a fit case for invoking the extraordinary

powers of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing

a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The detention cannot be described as illegal

under any circumstances even if it is assumed that the detenue was

taken by the paternal grandfather-respondent No.7 against the wishes

of the petitioner. A Writ of Habeas Corpus can only be filed in cases

where the detention is either illegal or contrary to law.

4. The Supreme Court in Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi and Another Vs.

State of U.P. and Others 1 relied on Gautam Kumar Das Vs. NCT of Delhi

and Others 2 and Tejaswini Gaud and Others Vs. Shekhar Jagdish

Prasad Tewari and Others 3 and held, inter alia, that the extraordinary

remedy of Habeas Corpus can be invoked seeking custody of a child

where the child has been taken away from her natural guardian. The

Supreme Court however also held that there can be no hard and fast

rule with regard to the maintainability of the Habeas Corpus petition

relating to custody of minor children and that each case would depend

on its individual facts and circumstances.

2025 INSC 159

2024 INSC 610

(2019) 7 SCC 42 : 2019 INSC 630

MB,J & BRMR,J

5. As stated above, the petitioner, if aggrieved, can file appropriate

proceedings before the jurisdictional Family Court. The present facts

however are not fit for issue of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

6. WP.No.20038 of 2025 is accordingly dismissed along with all

connected applications. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J

______________________________ B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J Date: 15.07.2025 PLV