IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 240 of 2009 Between: 1 A.Chandrasekhar, S/o. Late Sudrashan, R/o. H.No.18-8-8/1, Kamala Nagar, Road No.3, Chaitanyapuri, R.R.District. 2 A.Bhoodevi, W/o. Late Sudashan, R/o. H.No.18-8-8/1, Kamala Nagar, Road No.3, Chaitanyapuri, R.R.District. 3 A.Babu rao, S/o. Late Sudarshan, R/o. H.No.18-8-8/1, Kamala Nagar, Road No.3, Chaitanyapuri, R.R.District. 4 A.Laxman, S/o. Late Sudarshan, R/o. H.No.18-8-8/1, Kamala Nagar, Road No.3, Chaitanyapuri, R.R.District. 5 A.Ramu, S/o. Late Sudarshan, R/o. H.No.18-8-8/1, Kamala Nagar, Road No.3, Chaitanyapuri, R.R.District. 6 A.Krishna, S/o. Late Sudarshan, R/o. H.No.18-8-8/1, Kamala Nagar, Road No.3, Chaitanyapuri, R.R.District. 7 A.Kavitha, W/o. Babu Rao, R/o. H.No.18-8-8/1, Kamala Nagar, Road No.3, Chaitanyapuri, R.R.District. 8 A.Indira, W/o. Laxman, R/o. H.No.18-8-8/1, Kamala Nagar, Road No.3, Chaitanyapuri, R.R.District. 9 A.Sumalatha, W/o. A.Ramu, R/o. H.No.18-8-8/1, Kamala Nagar, Road No.3, Chaitanyapuri, R.R.District. 10 A.Kavitha, W/o. A.Krishna R/o. H.No.18-8-8/1, Kamala Nagar, Road No.3, Chaitanyapuri, R.R.District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The sub-Inspector of Police, Women P.S., Saroornagar, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Smt. A.Radhika, W/o. A.Chandra Sekhar, R/o. 11-41, Pragathi Nagar, P & T Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.PARSA ANANTH NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent No.3: ------ The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2, in interfering with the life and personal liberty of the petitioners at the instance of respondent No.3, as illegal and arbitrary. The marriage of petitioner No.1 with respondent No.3 appeared to have ran into rough weather. The petitioners, who belong to one family, allege that at the instance of respondent No.3, respondent No.2 has been unduly interfering with their life and personal liberty. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, these allegations are denied and it is specifically stated that neither petitioner No.1 nor respondent No.3 approached him with any complaint and that so far, he has not interfered with the life and personal liberty of the petitioners. No reply affidavit is filed by the petitioners controverting these averments. Therefore, the averments contained in the counter-affidavit deserve to be accepted as correct. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of placing on record the stand of respondent No.2 that he is not interfering with the life and personal liberty of the petitioners. However, petitioners are given liberty to seek revival of this Writ Petition, in the event such interference is made by respondent No.2 in future. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.254 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 4th June, 2008 LUR