IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 23097 of 2008 Between: Akella Srinivasa Chalapati Sastry S/o. Peri Sastry R/o. Flat No.T6, Raghu Enclave, Lalitha Nagar, Akkayapalem, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Circle Inspector, IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam. 3 R. Radhavaralaxmi W/o. Murali Mohan Rao R/o. H.No.5-6-3/22, Siddah Cheruvu Veedhi, Near Cholera Hospital, Vijayawada. .....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 declaring the action of the respondents No.2 as illegal, arbitrary and against the Article 21 of Constitution of India in not taking any action against the Respondent No.3 for release of petitioner daughter Viz., Laxmi Ananya who is in the illegal custody of Respondent No.3 and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to produce petitioner daughter Laxmi Ananya before this Hon'ble Court and set her at liberty and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.SANKARA 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 K.C.BHANU Writ Petition No.23097 of 2008 Oral Order: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard Sri V.Sankara Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 2. This writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus declaring the action of respondents No.2 as illegal and arbitrary in not taking any action against respondent No.3 for release of his daughter viz., Laxmi Ananya, who is in the illegal custody of respondent No.3, and consequently direct her to produce the child before this Court and set her at liberty. 3. It appears, as could be seen from the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the petition that the petitioner married one Lepakshi on 23-4-2003 at Narsipuram, Visakhapatnam as per the Hindu rites and customs, and out of the wedlock, the daughter had born on 03-11-2005. It is further stated in the aﬃdavit that the wife of the petitioner due to depression had committed suicide and the Police registered a crime for the oﬀence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No.3, who is no other than the mother-in-law and grand-parent of the child, hatched a plan in order to see that the crime was registered for the oﬀences punishable under Sections 302, 498-A and 304-B, I.P.C. It is the further case that whenever the petitioner wanted to see his child, respondent No.3 was refusing to handover the custody of his daughter nor allowing him to see her. In spite of a report made to the Police, no action had been taken, and that since the death of his wife, respondent No.3 had illegally kept the custody of his daughter and they foisted a false case against him and further that, the welfare, career and future of his daughter are very much important for him and his in-laws were not having capacity to look after his daughter as per his status, when he was an employee in abroad and drawing the substantial amount of Rs.45,000/- per month as salary. 4. Therefore, it is the grievance of the petitioner that his daughter had been illegally detained by the grand- parents of the daughter and they have not been allowing him to have a look at her and he seeks a writ of habeas corpus. 5. At the outset, we are of the view that this writ petition is totally misconceived. Obviously, even as per the averments made in the aﬃdavit by the petitioner he was made as an accused for the death of his wife, who is no other than the mother of the child and the crime was registered under Section 304-B, I.P.C., which is a serious offence. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that even from the date when the crime was registered against the petitioner, the child was in the custody of the maternal grand-parents only. 7. In such a case, there is nothing unnatural. However, if the petitioner wants the custody of the child with all seriousness, the proper course would be -- to approach a competent civil Court and seek a relief, as acceptable to law. 8. For the foregoing, we do not ﬁnd any substance in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 22nd October, 2008. Ak ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}