IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.17134 of 2009 Between: Abdullah Ahmed. … Petitioner And 1. Commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh at Hyderabad. 2. Station House Officer, Malakpet Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. Razia Sultana. 4. Syed Yakhoob Siraj. … Respondents. The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.17134 of 2009 ORDER: - (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 2. The only allegation in this writ petition is that the minor child of the writ petitioner is in the custody of the 3rd respondent, who is no other than the wife of the petitioner. It appears that for the past more than three years, the 3rd respondent and the petitioner have been living separately and the alleged detenues i.e., the daughter- Hannan, sons- Fuwaz and Majid, have been in the custody of the 3rd respondent. 3. It is the allegation of the petitioner that he has been staying abroad and the 3rd respondent also lived along with him in abroad for some time till about 2005. Then she came back to India and has been living with the 4th respondent. 4. Presently, this Court is not concerned with regard to the details as to whether the 3rd respondent is staying with the 4th respondent or not and if so, the reasons behind it. The concern of this Court is only with regard to the custody of the alleged detenues and their welfare. 5. Nowhere in the affidavit filed along with the writ petition, it has been alleged that the welfare of the alleged detenues is under serious peril, during their stay with the 3rd respondent. 6. It is to be remembered that the 3rd respondent is no other than the natural mother of the alleged detenues. When that is the case, this court cannot jump at a conclusion that the welfare of the children is under peril or would be under peril or is likely to be under peril, if the custody goes with the 3rd respondent. The presumption is that the children are safe in the custody of the natural mother, unless and until the contra is proved. 7. In the absence of any such specific averment, we are of the view that the grievance of the petitioner is only to the limited extent that it is the 3rd respondent who gained the custody of the children and nothing more. If the welfare of the children is to be gone into, various other peripheral aspects and facts have to be necessarily gone into, which exercise cannot be taken up by this Court. 8. It is the further allegation made by the petitioner that whenever he visits India he has been approaching the police and the 3rd respondent and the police have been informing him that in case the petitioner makes any complaint, he would be subjected to harassment. Afraid of the same, the petitioner is not venturing to make any complaint to the police and crying silently. We do not really find any reason for the petitioner to remain like that, without making any complaint to the police. 9. Therefore, we close the writ petition, with liberty to the petitioner to lodge a complaint with the police and upon such complaint, if any, being made by the petitioner, it is needless to mention that appropriate action would be initiated, in accordance with law. 10. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is closed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _________________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 19-08-2009. Lmv