IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE 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 : 9185 of 2008 Between: Chippala Balamani, W/o. Venkataiah, R/o. Yennepalli Village, Vikarabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director General of Police, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, 3 The Station House Officer, Vikarabad,Ranga Reddy District, 4 The Station House Officer, Chirala II Town Police Station, Chirala, Prakasam District. 5 Kommalapati Charles, S/o. Subba Rao, Vijalapeta, Perala, Chirala, Prakasam District. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents authorities to produce Chippala Renuka D/o. Venkataiah, aged 14 years before this Hon'ble Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.SUDERSHAN REDDY 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 K.C.BHANU Writ Petition No.9185 of 2008 Oral Order: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard Sri A.Sudarsan Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for respondents 1 to 4. 2. A mother, by name Chippala Balamani, wife of Venkataiah, resident of Yennepalli village, Vikarabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy district, complains in this writ petition that her daughter, by name Renuka, aged 14 years, was illegally in the custody of respondent No.5, by name Kommalapati Charles, son of Subba Rao, aged 19 years, Vijalapeta , Perala, Chirala, Prakasam district. 3. It appears, during the investigation, when the girl was traced in the company of respondent No.5, she stated that she married him. Respondent No.5 also appears to have stated that himself and the alleged detenue were married. 4. Upon the directions of this Court, the girl and the boy are present before this Court along with the parents of the alleged detenue, by name Renuka. When we questioned, the said girl stated that there was no marriage performed with respondent No.5 and she wants to stay with her parents only. 5. Obviously, the girl is a minor. Of course, the marriage of a minor girl with a major male cannot be held to be void. At best, it can be termed as voidable. The question as regards the validity or otherwise of the marriage, if any, raised by the aggrieved party in a competent Court of law, the same can be decided by the concerned Court, but not by this Court in the present writ petition, where a writ of habeas corpus has been sought. 6. Notwithstanding the validity or otherwise of the marriage obviously since the alleged detenue is a minor girl, the custody of the minor girl is inexpedient to be given to respondent No.5. 7. Furthermore, since the girl expresses her willingness in the open Court to stay with her parents and she being a minor, her custody, notwithstanding the marriage, if any, with respondent No.5 cannot be given to respondent No.5 and we feel it expedient to give the custody of the girl to biological parents only. 8. Accordingly, since respondent No.5 and the alleged detenue have been traced, we close the writ petition with a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to give custody of the alleged detenue, by name, Chippala Renuka, to her parents. 9. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is closed, at the stage of admission. No costs. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 23rd June, 2008. Ak ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}