IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 10173 of 2009 Between: Sreeni Srinivasa Rao S/o. S. Rama Rao Jangareddygudem, W.G. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director General and Inspector of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District at Eluru. 3 The Sub Inspector of Police, Jangareddygudem, West Godavari District 4 Chatradi Sailaja D/o. Ch. Thirumala Rao, C/o. Chennupati Prasad, R/o. Balaji Nagar, Old Anjaneya Temple, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada. .....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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondent police to produce the Corpus of Kum. Seeni Yamini, D/o. S. Sreenivasa Rao, aged about 13 years, R/o. H.No.19-2-30, 19th Ward, Street No.110, Benerji Street, Jangareddygudem, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, before this Hon'ble Court forthwith and consequently declare the action of the respondents is opposed to Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.S.KRISHNA PRASAD 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.10173 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 to 3. 2. This Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to produce his daughter viz., Kum. Seeni Yamini, aged 13 years, resident of H.No.19-2-30, 19th Ward, Street No.110, Benerji Street, Jangareddygudem, West Godavari District, before this Court. 3. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that though he is the father of the child Kum. Seeni Yamini, she is in the custody of her mother by force only and inspite of the complaint being made, the third respondent police, in collusion with the fourth respondent-mother of the child, is not giving the custody of the child. 4. From the counter affidavit filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Lakkavaram Police Station, West Godavari District, representing the 3rd respondent herein, it appears that the child was originally with the custody of the petitioner-father. A complaint had been lodged by the fourth respondent-mother some time back and when the police examined the child, she narrated the events about the ill-treatment being meted out by her in her paternal grand-father’s house and in the house of her aunt at Hyderabad. She also expressed her willingness to join the mother and as on today, the child is in the custody of the mother. From the counter affidavit it also appears that the alleged detenu is not willing to stay with her father, who is the petitioner herein. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that after giving custody of the child to her mother, a report has been filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangareddigudem to issue suitable directions and the same is still pending. 5. The above facts narrated in the counter affidavit are not disputed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the custody of the child be given to the petitioner or atleast issue suitable directions to the fourth respondent- mother to admit the child in the school where she was originally admitted by the petitioner. 6. From the above, it is obvious that the custody of the child is with the mother and the said fact had been brought to the notice of the competent judicial authority by whom further orders are yet to be passed. Therefore, we are not convinced with the averment made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the custody of the child was illegal and hence, issuance of Habeas Corpus is not the appropriate remedy. 7. Further, it is to be noted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy provided under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, as per which it is open for the petitioner to file a petition before the competent Court seeking custody of the child. When such an alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, this Court cannot issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus for production of the child. 8. For the foregoing, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _________________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 18-06-2009 Msr. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.10173 of 2009 18-06-2009 (Msr)