IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 18932 of 2008 Between: 1 Gurugubelli Rama Krishna S/o. Srinivasa Rao Zen Co. at Donkarai, East Godavari District. 2 Gurugubelli Srinivasa Rao S/o. Raja Rao R/o. H.No. 39-22-68, Kalinganagar, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam. 3 Gurugubelli Ramalakshmi W/o. Srinviasa Rao R/o. H.No. 39-22-68, Kalinganagar, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Home Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 2 Commiossioner of Police, Visakhapatnam City. 3 Station House Officer, Visakhapatnam V Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam. 4 Kancharana Peda Vallabha Rao S/o. Appala Murthy R/o. Door NO. 58-15-56, Santhinagar, N.A.D Kotha Road, Visakhapatnam. 5 Kancharana Hymavathi W/o. Peda Vallabha Rao R/o. Door NO. 58-15-56, Santhinagar, N.A.D Kotha Road, Visakhapatnam. 6 Kancharana Pravallika @ G. Pravallika W/o. G. Rama Krishna R/o. Door NO. 58-15-56, Santhinagar, N.A.D Kotha Road, Visakhapatnam. .....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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in repeatedly paying domiciliary visits to the petitioners insisting to appear before Police and agree to the terms of the respondents 4 to 6 without there being any crime registered and any offence having not been committed, as illegal, irregular, without jurisdiction violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and Consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with life and liberty of the petitioners. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.C.RAMACHANDRA RAJU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 18932 of 2008 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in repeatedly paying domiciliary visits to the petitioners, insisting to appear before the police and agree to the terms of respondents 4 to 6 without there being any crime registered and no offence having been committed as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with the life and liberty of the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is working as Assistant Engineer in A.P. Genco at Donkarai of East Godavari District. Petitioners 2 and 3 are his parents. 6th respondent is his wife. Respondents 4 and 5 are parents of 6th respondent. The marriage of the petitioner No.1 took place with 6th respondent on 5.9.2007 at Visakhapatnam. It was an arranged marriage. Respondents 4 and 5 had another daughter by name Prasanthi. The petitioner had a brother by name Sri Krishna, who is working as Software Engineer in Ford Company at Chennai. His brother got acquainted with the younger daughter of respondents 4 and 5 by name Prasanthi, who is the sister of his wife i.e. 6th respondent herein. In the course of time, they developed love for each other and decided to marry. The decision was opposed by respondents 4 and 5. Then they got registered the marriage on the file of Marriage Registrar, S. Kota vide Hindu marriage No. 52 of 2008 dated 30.6.2008. The marriage was consummated. They have been living together and leading happy marital life in Chennai. When the respondents 4 and 5 were creating some problems, the petitioner No.1 filed a complaint before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent forwarded their complaint to the 3rd respondent. However, the 3rd respondent directed the younger daughter of the respondents 4 and 5 to join with her parents and decide within three days whether she was willing to stay with her parents by abandoning the marriage or to join her husband with due regard to the marriage. The 6th respondent realized that her parents were acting against her interests and she immediately withdrew the complaint and joined the petitioner No.1. They are leading happy marital life. When some more disputes arose, respondents 1 and 2, without there being any crime registered, calling the petitioner No.1 to the police station and interfering with his life and liberty. As seen from the above, the matter appears to be relating to the marriage of the sister-in-law of petitioner No.1 with his brother. There is no necessity of going into all the details. In the counter filed by the respondents it is stated that only for the purpose of counseling, as there were some differences between petitioner No.1 and his wife, they were called to the police station on 21.8.2008. Thereafter, they were never called to the police station. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent not to interfere with the personal liberty of the petitioners without following the due process of law. C.V. RAMULU, J. Date: 17-11-2008. MVB.