IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.15799 of 2009 Between: K. Venu, S/o. Kondaiah, H.No. 6-5-3, Flat No.401, Sai Balaji Complex, Opp: Vimal Theatre, Balanagar, Cyberabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Circle Inspector of Police, Balanagar Police Station, Cyberabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Sub-Inspector of police, Balanagar, P.S., Cyberabad, Hyderabad. 3 M. Sarathchandra Ramesh, S/o. NOt Known to the Petitioner R/o. M.V.P. Colony, Pedawalteru, Visakhapatnam, and R/o. Chandravaram Village, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District. 4 M. Renu, W/o. M. Sarathchandra Ramesh, R/o. M.V.P. Colony, Pedawalteru, 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the natue of WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS and direct the respondents to produce the son of the petitioner N. Radhakrishna S/o. K. Venu, aged 10 who is presently under the illegal custody of the respondents 3 and 4 before this Hon'ble Court Counsel for the Petitioner:S.SURENDRA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.15799 of 2009 ORAL ORDER : (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. This Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed by the petitioner directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to produce his son viz., N.Radhakrishna, s/o. K.Venu, aged 10 years, who is in illegal custody of respondent Nos.3 and 4, before this Court and set him at liberty, forthwith. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the third respondent along with some hired men came to the house of the petitioner and in his absence threatened his mother and forcibly took away his son. Subsequently, on enquiry he found that his son was in the custody of respondent Nos.3 and 4. 4. It is an admitted fact that respondent No.3 is the husband of respondent No.4, whose marriage was performed after her divorce with the petitioner. As a result, now the petitioner is a divorcee, whereas respondent No.4 is the natural mother of the alleged detenu. 5. From the facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is obvious that the alleged detenu is in the custody of respondent No.4, who is his natual mother. The legality or otherwise of taking custody of the child cannot be a question that can be decided or desirable to be decided by this Court while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by issuing a Writ of Habeas Corpus, particularly in view of the admitted facts. 6. It is rather unfortunate that quite often this Court is coming across the matters like this, which are to be decided otherwise by due process of law. When a specific remedy is available under the statute in cases of such a nature, it is always desirable for the aggrieved person to approach the competent Court of law and seek redressal of his grievance or can make a complaint to the police or invoke Section 200 Cr.P.C. But, invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is totally uncalled for and the same amounts to abuse of the process of law. It is rather a deliberate attempt to settle the scores before this Court. In other words, this Court is being made a platform to get the relief in a short circuit method and because of such practice the precious time of not only this Court, but also the other Government officials is put to loss. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs. 8. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed, in limini, at the stage of admission, with costs quantified at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) payable to the Chief Justice Relief Fund. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _________________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 04-08-2009 Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.15799 of 2009 04-08-2009 (Msr)