IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.13784 of 2009 Between: Ronda Priyatham, S/o. Ronda Madhusudhana Reddy, (Adopeted Father), Minor Rep by his natural mother Vemulapalli Bharati, W/o. V. Chandrasekhar, Aged about 36 years, r/o. D.No. 49-9-22, Sri Sai Residency, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State, Rep by the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City, Krishna District. 2 The State, Rep by the Circle Inspector, Suryapet, L&O Police Station, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 Ronda Poli Reddy, S/o. not Known, R/o. D.No. 7-26, Kalyani Nilayam, Endowments Colony, Kamaiah Thopu, Kanuru Gram Panchayat, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondent No. 1 to 3 to produce the adopted father of the petitioner namely Sri Ronda Madhusudhana Reddy, S/o. Poli Reddy, aged about 37 years, in person before the court of law as he is wrongfully confined and detained since 22-6-2009 and there is anyamount of danger to his health and life and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VENUGOPALA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.13784 of 2009 ORAL ORDER : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. This Writ of Habeas Corpus has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to produce the adopted father of the petitioner viz., Sri Ronda Madhusudhana Reddy, s/o. Poli Reddy, who is wrongfully confined and detained by the third respondent since 22.6.2009, that he is apprehending danger to his life and set him at liberty. 3. It is the case of the petitioner as presented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, who is a minor boy, aged about 8 years, has been in the care and custody of his adoptive father, who is the alleged detenu, for the last 3 to 4 years and the petitioner is very much attached in all respects to his adoptive father. It is his grievance that the third respondent herein, who is the father of the alleged detenu, has illegally detained the alleged detenu. It is also stated that the alleged detenu had recently disposed of some property also. Therefore, he seeks production of the alleged detenu before this Court. 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the adoptive father of the petitioner, who is the alleged detenu, has been suffering from neurotic problem, which requires care and attention by the parents. Therefore, the alleged detenu is presently in the care and custody of the third respondent herein, who is his father. 5. In view of the above said facts, what is required to be proved is whether there was any adoption as such and what is the obligation on the part of the alleged detenu towards the petitioner and also the right of the petitioner over the alleged detenu. These are all the disputed questions that cropped up in the mind of the Court, which cannot be answered despite any amount of proof placed before this Court. Therefore, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the competent civil Court and seek redressal of his grievance where only all these questions of fact can and shall have to be determined. 6. In view of the above facts, the question of issuing Writ of Habeas Corpus does not arise. 7. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _________________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 20-07-2009 Msr. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.13784 of 2009 20-07-2009 (Msr)