Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/15554/2026 of ANNAPUREDDY SHIVA NAGI REDDY Vs THE STATE OF AP on 13 July 2026
for orders : Date of pronouncement : 14.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010299722026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 14 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO: 15554/2026
Date of reserved for orders :
Date of pronouncement :
Date of uploading
:
APHC010299722026
IN THE H
(
TUESDA
THE HONOURAB
THE HONOURABL
WRIT
Between:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. ANNAPUREDDY SHI ABOUT 42 YEARS MANGALAGIRI, GUNT
1. THE STATE OF AP, DEPARTMENT, A.P AMARAVATHI, GUNT
2. THE DIRECTOR GEN MANGALAGIRI, GUNT
3. THE SUPERINTENDE PRADESH - 522001.
4. THE STATION HOU STATION ANDHRA P
5. PITTU KRISHNA RE R/O NOT KNOWN TO
14.07.2026 21.07.2026 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) AY, THE 14th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHAR LE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUM CHINTALAPUDI T PETITION NO: 15554/2026 VA NAGI REDDY, S/O AWALA REDD S, OCC LABOURER, R/O NUTALC TUR DISTRICT. ...PE AND REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETAR P. SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELA TUR DISTRICT - 522238. NERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QU TUR DISTRICT - 522502. ENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR DISTRICT, SE OFFICER, MANGALAGIRI RURAL PRADESH - 522503. DDY, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PE O THE PETITIONER.
RI MAR DY, AGED CKI, 5-237 TITIONER RY HOME AGAPUDI, UARTERS, , ANDHRA L POLICE TITIONER
...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to forthwith trace, secure, and produce the Petitioner's wife, namely Smt. Annapureddy Pavani, and the minor children, namely Master Annapureddy Bhavadeep Reddy and Kumari Annapureddy Rithika, before this Hon'ble Court and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. RAVULA JISHITHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI WRIT PETITION NO: 1554/2026 ORDER: (per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J)
The Writ Petition for Habeas Corpus has been filed by the petitioner, who is the husband of the detenue, seeking the production and release of the detenue and the children.
2. Sri Ravula Jishitha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detenue and the children have been traced and, consequently, the grievance no longer survives.
3. Sri J.Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General has also filed an affidavit on behalf of the 4th respondent stating, inter alia, that the detenue and the children had been staying with her mother and younger brother since 08.06.2026. Thereafter, on 19.06.2026, the petitioner and the detenue were reunited at the Mangalagiri Rural Police Station. The relevant portion of the affidavit is extracted hereunder:
“I humbly submit that an Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police enquired into the matter and subsequently, our enquiries revealed that she has been staying with her mother and younger brother in Bapatla since 08.06.2026. I respectfully submit that pursuant to the directions of this Hon'ble Court Dt.16.06.2026 to ascertain the facts and report the same to this Hon'ble Court, the Station House Officer summoned the petitioner and his wife to the Mangalagiri Rural Police Station on 19.06.2026, where she was reunited with her husband. During the interaction, the couple voiced grievances regarding mutual suspicions and other marital issues in between them; they were counselled at the station and initially advised them to reconcile and return home together. Accordingly, statements of the petitioner and his wife were recorded.”
4. In view of the subsequent developments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter has become infructuous.
5. Recording the said submissions, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, the parties are at liberty to work out their remedies in respect of their matrimonial disputes before the competent forum, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J
_____________________________________ PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHINTALAPUDI,J
Dated: 14.07.2026 DSV