IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3719 of 2009 Between: Tethali Satyavathi, W/o. Venkat Reddy, Hindu, R/o. Marteru Village, Penumantra Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, Kakinada. 2 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. 3 The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ravulapalem Police Station, Ravulapalem, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in interfering with the petitioner and her husband's life and liberty by calling to the police station without any basis is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with their life and liberty and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner states that her son married one Varalakshmi on 20.2.2003. While so, due to some disputes, their marriage was dissolved by a decree dated 31.12.2007 in O.P. No.108 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku. Now, the petitioner’s grievance is that even after dissolution of the marriage, the 3rd respondent-Sub-Inspector of Police, at the instance of the petitioner’s daughter-in-law, is calling them to the police station frequently on the ground that the petitioner’s daughter-in-law lodged a complaint against her, and the same was registered as F.I.R. under Section 498-A IPC, and harassing her and her husband, thereby causing mental agony to them. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the daughter- ion-law of the petitioner never lodged any complaint against the petitioner and neither the petitioner nor her husband was summoned to the police station and the 3rd respondent never harassed them at any point of time. Having regard to the stand taken by the 3rd respondent in the counter affidavit that the petitioner’s daughter-in-law has not lodged any complaint against the petitioner in Ravulapalem Police Station and that the 3rd respondent never called either the petitioner or her husband to the police station, no orders need be passed in the writ petition. Accordingly, placing the counter averments on record, the writ petition is closed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 12th March, 2009 bcj