THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Writ Petition No.23377 of 2009 Date: 16-11-2009 Between Katepalli Srinivasa Rao … Petitioner and 1. The Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Khammam, Khammam district and 6 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Writ Petition No.23377 of 2009 Oral Order: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for respondents 1 to 4. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the alleged detenue, namely, Smt. Mandepudi Sridevi, was illegally taken away by her husband and father, who are added as respondents 5 and 7. 3. The petitioner herein is the brother of the alleged detenue by courtesy. 4. At the outset, it is incomprehensible for us as to why the petitioner has an objection if the husband or the father of the alleged detenue had taken her away and keeps her in their custody. After all, the husband is the person, in whose custody the wife is expected to be. It is not in dispute that the alleged detenue is the mother of two daughters who are studying Intermediate course and 10th Class, respectively. 5. It appears that there are some feuds and misunderstandings between the alleged detenue and her husband and father. Details are not coming forth fully nor it is for us to go into all those details. 6. However, the situation which is not in dispute is that she was kept in the Government Hospital for Mental Care, Erragadda, Hyderabad for treatment for some time, initially in the month of June, 2009 and then again in the month of August, 2009. 7. It further appears that she was discharged from the hospital three days ago and she is produced before us today. 8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the custody of the alleged detenue was given to her father and today she is produced before us along with her father, in whose custody the detenue was kept. 9. Upon being questioned, the alleged detenue is not clear as to exactly where she wanted to live nor she is able to express specifically whether she is willing to stay with her husband. Even today, the father of the alleged detenue is present before this Court accompanying her. From her appearance and from the answers given to the Court to the questions posed by us, we are of the considered view that the alleged detneue is in a sound state of mind and stable. But she is not in a position to express the reasons why she wants to live away with the husband and the father. Upon being persistently questioned, she expresses to live on her own independently, preferably staying with her brother, who is no other than the petitioner. The reasons are not known nor we are much concerned about those particulars. 10. Since the alleged detenue is a major and keeping her stable state of mind in view and also in view of the fact that she was already discharged from the hospital, we feel it appropriate to direct the respondents to set her at liberty and accordingly, she is permitted to move around according to her wish and will. 11. The petitioner, who reportedly also present before this Court, is questioned by us. He is identified by the father of the alleged detenue and the detenue herself and her husband, who also is present. They state that her mental state has not been in sound condition all through. However, it is interesting to note that the husband of the alleged detenue is also keen to take her back. At the same time, the petitioner, who is the brother of the alleged detenue by courtesy, is more eager to take care of her along with her children all through her life and meet the expenditure including food, clothing, education etc., of the children. 12. However, as already pointed out, the alleged detenue is at liberty to move wherever she wants. 13. The petitioner is only expected not to escape from the liability undertaken before this Court as regards the detenue and her children. In the event of any deliberate failure in not keeping up his undertaking made before this Court, the husband or father of the alleged detenue are at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings as permissible under law against the petitioner. 14. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is closed, at the stage of admission. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ____________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 16th November, 2009. Ak