THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.13436 of 2010 28.6.2010 Between: Geni @ Gavini Koteswararao Yadav, S/o.Gantaiah Yadav … Petitioner AND The Deputy Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District, Eluru And others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.13436 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) In this writ petition for writ of Habeas Corpus, Gavini Koteswara Rao Yadav, Ex-Hawaldar of Indian Army, complains that his minor daughter, Udaya Sree, had been forcibly taken by respondents 3 and 4 to Jangareddy Gudem in West Godavari District and that in spite of giving a complaint to Superintendent of Police, Eluru, his daughter has not been restored. It is the case of the petitioner that after demise of his wife, he married Chittemma. The couple was blessed with Udaya Sree in 2003. Chittemma died in a motor accident on 29.3.2010 at Eluru. Respondents 3 and 4 along with six others took away a steel almyrah, cash of Rs.50,000/-, gold ornaments worth Rs.1,00,000/- and documents pertaining property worth about Rs.50,000/-. He also alleged that as there was threat to his life, he left Jangareddy Gudem where he was staying earlier for Bapatla. Alleging that no action has been initiated on his complaint, he filed the instant writ petition. The second respondent filed counter affidavit. A perusal of the same would reveal that after receiving notice ordered by this Court through the office of Advocate General, he made enquiries and recorded the statement of detenu. The detenu appears to have expressed willingness to stay with her grandmother at Jangareddy Gudem and also stated that petitioner herein did not take care of her schooling and her two brothers. In her statement, detenu also alleged that after death of Chittemma, petitioner took away gold ornaments and left Jangareddy Gudem. Petitioner has not chosen to file any reply affidavit contraverting counter averments/allegations. This Court heard the counsel for petitioner and the Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Advocate General. On considering the totality of the circumstances, this Court is convinced that there is a dispute between the petitioner and grandmother of detenu for the custody of child. Apart from the allegations made by both the rival groups, the custody of minor child has to be decided keeping in view of her welfare. Any adjudication in that direction ought to be by competent Civil Court under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The writ petition is misconceived. Liberty is given to petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in Civil Court for custody of detenu. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) _________________ (K.C.BHANU,J) June 28, 2010 YS