IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBURARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION NO. 4361 of 2010 Between: Kotagiri Ashok Kumar ..... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Director General of Police, Lakdi-ka-Pul, Hyderabad, and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice G.V.Seethapathy) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for a direction to the fourth respondent to produce Master Vishnu, aged 13 years. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing learned Advocate General for the respondent. Perused the records. It is not disputed that the petitioner married fourth respondent on 9.5.1996 and out of the wedlock, a male child named Vishnu, was born to them on 5.6.1997. Subsequently, the marriage between the petitioner and the fourth respondent was dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 27.7.2002 passed in OP No. 113 of 2002 by the Lok Adalath. The petitioner filed OP No. 241 of 2003 before the III Addl. District Judge, Kakinada seeking custody of the minor boy and the said petition was allowed with a direction to the respondent to allow the petitioner to see the minor child Master Vishnu. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal in CMA No. 1366 of 2004 before this court and by order dated 26.6.2008, this court confirmed the order passed by the trial court in OP No. 241 of 2003. The petitioner preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking enforcement of the order passed by the trial court in OP No. 241 of 2003, whereunder visiting rights were granted to the petitioner. The petitioner has effective alternative remedy available under law to enforce the order passed by the trial court in OP No. 241 of 2003 and confirmed by this court in CMA No. 1366 of 2004. However, without availing the alternative remedy available to him under law and without pursuing the remedies before appropriate court and without initiating necessary proceedings for enforcement of the order passed in OP No. 241 of 2003, the petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus, which is impermissible under law. The petitioner sought production of the minor boy who is in the custody of the fourth respondent contending that he is not aware of her whereabouts. Even according to the petitioner, the minor boy Master Vishnu is available with the fourth respondent and both of them are now staying at Tirupathi. The proper course for the petitioner is to file an application before the concerned court to enforce the order passed in O.P. No. 241 of 2003 instead of seeking a direction by way of a writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the petition is wholly misconceived and the same cannot be entertained. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ Justice D.S.R. Varma ____________________ Justice G.V.Seethapathy February 25, 2010 MAS.