IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 23262 of 2008 Between: Smt.Syeda Uzma Sara Sarmast W/o.Y.Akber Ahmed R/o.H.No.19-3-878, D.Block, First Floor, Yaseen Complex, Hyderabad, A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Akbar Ahmed S/o.Yousuf Ahmed R/o.113/A (Old Number) New Number 257, Royapettah, Chennai-14, Tamil Nadu. 2 The State of A.P. through P.S. Shah Ali Banda, Hyderabad. .....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 any writ, order or orders essentially in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents herein to produce Master Mohd. Khalid Ahmed aged about three years before this Hon'ble Court and consequently restore the custody of the said Mohd. Khalid Ahmed to the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.VEERABHADRA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.23262 OF 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) The mother of the minor child Mohd. Khalid Ahmed, filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus alleging that she married to respondent No.1 according to the Muslim rites and customs at Chennai and during their wedlock, a minor child is born to them. As her in-laws and husband-first respondent have not looked after well, she was forced to leave the matrimonial house and started living with her father. When the first respondent threatened with dire consequences, her father lodged a complaint with the second respondent Police Station and the minor child is in the illegal custody of the first respondent and therefore, the custody of the minor boy may be given to her. Admittedly, the first respondent is the father of the minor boy and there appear some disputes between the petitioner and the first respondent and the petitioner also alleged that she was harassed by the first respondent and her in-laws and as such she was forced to leave the matrimonial house. It is not in dispute that the first respondent is the natural father and he is entitled to the custody of the minor child. The question as to who would be given preferential right to have the custody of the minor child cannot be decided by this Court sitting under Article 226 of Constitution of India, and it has to be decided by a civil Court/Family Court on an appropriate application being filed by the parties. In view of the same, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus is misconceived and cannot be entertained. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) __________________ (R. KANTHA RAO, J.) NOVEMBER 21, 2008 TSR Copy To: 1. The Advocate General, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT) 2. Two C.D. copies