IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.10335 of 2009 Between: Abbina Krishna Rao. … Petitioner And 1. The superintendent of Police, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2. The Station House Officer, Udrajavaram Police Station, Undrajavaram (P.O. & mandal), West Godavari District. 3. Chitturi Seshagiri Satyanarayana. 4. Chitturi Varalakshmi. 5. Burugupalli Srinivas. 6. Burugupalli Susheela. … Respondents The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.10335 OF 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: - (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing the learned Advocate General, appearing for respondents 1 and 2, and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that his daughter viz., Abbina Lakshmi Sirisha, i.e., the alleged detenue has been detained illegally by respondents 3 to 6 and that they are not even permitting the petitioner to meet and talk to his daughter. 3. The main allegation in this writ petition is that the alleged detenue is in the custody of respondents 3 and 4, who are the maternal grand parents of the alleged detenue. 4. The official respondents 1 and 2 and the 3rd respondent filed counter-affidavits contending inter alia, that the petitioner is the father of the alleged detenue and that her mother died in the year 2000. The alleged detenue has been in the custody of the grand parents/respondents 3 and 4. As of date, as per the record placed before this Court, she is a major. 5. That apart, it has been brought to the notice of this court by respondent No.3 and the other official respondents that the alleged detenue, has been in the care and custody of respondents 3 and 4. She filed O.S.No.269 of 2002, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari District, seeking partition. The said suit was decreed by judgment, dated 29.12.2007. The unofficial respondents have been insisting to have this decree executed. While steps are being taken, the present writ petition came to be filed suppressing the said fact. Furthermore, the petitioner has filed a petition in S.R.No.3849 of 2002, on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku, seeking custody of the alleged detenue, upon which she was produced before the Magistrate. After recording the statement of the alleged detenue, the said Magistrate allowed her to join the 3rd respondent, who is the grand parent. It appears that the alleged detenue expressed her strong unwillingness to join with the petitioner. Consequently, the said Magistrate has passed orders dismissing the said petition, by order, dated 11.06.2002. Even this fact also was suppressed by the petitioner. 5. What is obvious from the above fact is that the petitioner is totally aware of the fact that the alleged detenue has been in the care and custody of the 3rd and 4th respondents, who are no other than the maternal grand parents of the alleged detenue, that too after she lost her mother. Having full knowledge that the alleged detenue has been in the custody of her grand parents and having suffered the decree against him for partition filed by the alleged detenue herself and also having lost the case filed by the petitioner seeking custody of the alleged detenue, after long lapse of time, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking interference of this Court by issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus. 6. In the light of the facts brought to the notice of this Court by the counter-affidavits filed by the 3rd respondent and the official respondents, we are of the considered view that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed the material facts and filed the present writ petition making false and frivolous allegations. The said act is nothing but a sort of making use of this court as a platform to settle the dispute with his in-laws, who are 3rd and 4th respondents herein, and in order to preempt the consequential proceedings pursuant to the decree passed in the suit for partition filed by the alleged detenue. 7. The conduct of the petitioner is highly reproachable. Therefore, for wasting the time of this court and for unnecessarily dragging all the respondents to the Court by filing this writ petition suppressing the material facts on other frivolous grounds, we propose to dismiss the writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _________________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO 07.10.2009. Lmv