IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 19080 of 2008 Between: Gudala Hanumantha Rao S/o. Veerabhadra Rao R/o. Rollapalem Village, H/o. Indupalli, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District. 2 The Station House Officer, Amalapuram Town Police Station, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. 3 Mattaparthi Satya Babji S/o. Sathi Raju R/o. D.No. 4-30, Sumitra Nagar, Kukatpalli, 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 WRIT OF HABEUS CORPUS or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to produce Mattaparthi China Satyanarayanamma either bodily or dead person before this Hon'ble Court in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CHANDRA SEKHAR ILAPAKURTI Counsel for the Respondent No.: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition has been ﬁled seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to produce Mattaparthi China Satyanarayanamma either bodily or dead person before this Court. In this Writ Petition it has been stated that about 10 months prior to the ﬁling of the Writ Petition, the third respondent had allegedly kidnapped the alleged detenue. When the earlier complaint was given on 20.1.2007, the oﬃcial respondents caused investigation and it has come to light that the alleged detenue was not kidnapped by the third respondent but she was staying with the third respondent voluntarily. It appears that once again another complaint was given about a couple of months i.e., somewhere in the month of March, and another complaint was also given making the same kind of allegations. According to the second respondent, after the notices were received from the court, the alleged detenue was traced and she was produced before the Tahsildar/Mandal Executive Magistrate, Devarpally Manda, West Godavari District, where she was residing with her adopted son i.e., third respondent, before whom the alleged detenue made a statement that she was not kidnapped forcibly and she was living with the third respondent voluntarily. In other words, she denied all the allegations. The statement recorded by the Tahsildar cum Mandal Executive Magistate, Devarpaly Mandal, shall be made part of the record. Regardless of allegations made by the petitioner and the investigation conducted by the police and the results there of, it is to be noticed that the alleged detenue is aged about 85 years and third respondent is admittedly her adopted son. Therefore, it is obvious that the relation ship between the alleged detenue and the third respondent is not in dispute. On the contrary, it is admitted by the petitioner that the petitioner is the nephew of the alleged detenue i.e., he is the sister’s son of the alleged detenue. The reason for his keenness and interest shows towards alleged detenue is not known. However, it appears from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is some property interest involved in the matter. Regardless of those disputes, it is to be noticed that the alleged detenue, who is aged about 85 years has a right to live the way in which she likes with whom so ever she wants. After all the third respondent who is son or the adopted son as the case may be has the right to take her mother. There is nothing wrong even if the alleged detenue is living with her adopted son. But only thing to be noticed is whether she was willingly living with her son or not. The answer to this question is available in the statement recorded by the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Devarpally Mandal, who has no vested interest in this matter. Therefore, there is no apparent reason for the Mandal Executive Magistrate to record wrong statement, that too by applying coercive steps. These allegations made across the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not at all relevant nor there is nothing on record about these allegations nor anything is stated in the form of rejoinder refuting the allegations made by the second respondent in the counter affidavit. In other words, the liberty that was with the alleged detenue cannot be denied or questioned in any manner by the petitioner. This actually amounts to interfering with the freedom of the alleged detenue and unnecessarily roping the alleged detenue and the third respondent into this litigation by ﬁling compliant before the police that too after several months of the alleged kidnap from the very conduct on the part of the petitioner and also the facts on record. We are of the considered view that this Writ Petition is totally misconceived and for wasting the valuable time of the Court and of the oﬃcial respondents in making enormous investigation the petitioner deserves to be saddled with burden of pain of exemplary costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the alleged detenue i.e. Mattaparthi China Satyanarayanamma within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ____________________ 24th September 2008 JUSTICE K.C.BHANU KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District. 2 The Station House Officer, Amalapuram Town Police Station, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. 3.2CCs to the Advocate General, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 4.2CD copies