IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 10384 of 2008 Between: Smt.P.Karuna Devi w/o.Tirupathi Reddy R/o.Peddapalli Village & Mandal, Karimnagar District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, Karimnagar District. 2 The Additional Superintendent of Police, Godavarikhani,Karimnagar District. 3 The Station House Officer, Godavarikhani I Town P.S. Karimnagar District. 4 D.Nagaraju s/o.Rajesham Saptagiri Colony, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus by declaring the actions of the respondents 1 to 3 herein in not permitting the petitioner to see/talk to the adoptive daughter is illegal, void abintio and violative of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to produce the adoptive daughter of the petitioner i.e., Suprasanna from the hands of the 4th respondent and set her free and pass such other order/s. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 10384 OF 2008 O R D E R: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) The petitioner seeks a writ of Habeas Corpus and prays for production of their adoptive daughter, by name Suprasanna, who is said to be in the custody of the 4th respondent. It is stated that the petitioner and her husband took their grand daughter (daughter of their daughter) Suprasanna, in adoption, and have admitted her in the Mother Theressa Engineering College, Peddapalli. According to her, the 4th respondent, who is also studying Final year of B.Tech in the same college, has deceived Suprasanna, and took her as captive. Their efforts to get the custody of their adopted daughter, are said to have been proved futile. It is complained that though repeated complaints and representations were made before the respondents 1 to 3, in this regard, no action has been taken thereon. This court ordered notice to the respondents on 2.5.2008 and directed listing of the matter before us, today. On receipt of notice, the 4th respondent had appeared before this court, together with the alleged detenue. The petitioner and her daughter have also attended the Court. We have examined the parties, and in particular the alleged detenue, in camera. She stated that she married the 4th respondent voluntarily, and that she is pregnant of eight months, at present. The petitioner and her daughter have also seen the alleged detenue, and except for expressing their anguish, they too are in helpless position. Once the alleged detenue had stated in clear terms that she married the 4th respondent, it cannot be said that she was illegally detained. Having regard to the facts that have emerged during the course of hearing of the matter, and on examination of the parties, we are of the view that no relief can be granted, in this writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Dt. 21-05-2008. PAN