WP/36478/2025 of PONDARI HARSHAVARDHAN Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 27 January 2026

1. PONDARI HARSHA R/O. D.NO. 4-16 SRIKAKULAM TOW

1. THE STATE OF AN TO GOVERNME VELAGAPUDI, GUN

2. SUPERINTENDENT SRIKAKULAM - 532

3. STATION HOUSE STATION, SRIKAKU

4. MANDALAPU KOTE R/O. GANDHI A CHINNAMIRAM, DISTRICT - 534206 Petition under Articl circumstances stated in pleased to issue a writ, o E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JAN O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR G RIT PETITION NO: 36478/2025 AVARDHAN, S/O. PRASAD, AGED 68, HIGH SCHOOL COLONY, S WN AND DISTRICT. AND NDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRI NT, HOME DEPARTMENT, S NTUR -522238 T OF POLICE, SRIKAKULAM 2001. E OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM II TO ULM TOWN AND DISTRICT - 532001 ESWARA RAO, S/O. NOT KNOWN, A APARTMENTS, 1ST FLOOR, 1S KOPALLE BHIMAVARAM, WEST

6. ...RES le 226 of the Constitution of India pra the affidavit filed therewith, the High order or direction more particularly one DESH

NUARY DRANATH ROY GEDELA D 22 YEARS, SINGUPURAM, ...PETITIONER . SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, M DISTRICT, OWN POLICE

1. AGED MAJOR, ST BUILDING, T GODAVARI SPONDENT(S): aying that in the h Court may be e in the nature of

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS directing the respondents to produce petitioners wife namely Mandalapu Prasanna Jahnavi, Aged 22 years, Occ. Software Engineer, R/o. Gandhi Partments, 1st Floor, 1st Building, Chinnamiram, Kopalle Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, before this Honourabie Court, from the illegal custody of respondent 4 and consequentiy direct the respondents 2 and 3 to set her be free from the illegal detention of the 4th respondent and not to interfere in any manner with his personal liberty of the detenue Mandalapu Prasanna Jahnavi and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to produce petitioners wife namely Mandalapu Prasanna Jahnavi, Aged 22 years, Occ Software Engineer, R/o. Gandhi Partments, 1st Floor, 1st Building, Chinnamiram, Kopalle Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, before this Honourable Court, from the illegal detention of respondent 4 and set her be free pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. M SOLOMON RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

This is the second round of litigation. Earlier the petitioner has filed the writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India for Habeas Corpus, seeking similar relief, in writ petition No.33372 of 2025. In the said writ petition, we have narrated the facts relating to the lis. Upon direction given by us to produce the corpus, the corpus was produced in the said writ petition. We have interacted with the corpus as well as the petitioner. The corpus is a major aged about 22 years. She has clearly stated during our interaction in the presence of the petitioner himself that she is not ready to accompany him and live with him and that she intends to live only with her parents till the petitioner secures a job. We have also recorded a finding in the said writ petition that the corpus has been voluntarily living with her free will and volition with her parents and not by force or compulsion. Therefore, recording the submissions of the corpus, the petitioner and the parents of the corpus, we have closed the writ petition. However, we have observed that the corpus, who is a major, is at liberty to join the company of the petitioner, who is her husband, after he secures a job.

2. So, we have allowed her to accompany her parents and live with them. Thereafter, again the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner. In the present writ petition, it is alleged that the corpus has sent a message to the petitioner on 15.12.2025 at about 5:25 P.M., stating that her parents are forcing to sign on divorce papers and that the parents of the corpus are not allowing the petitioner to talk to the corpus or to interact with her. Therefore, again he has filed the present writ petition for Habeas Corpus.

3. When this writ petition came up for admission, while ordering notice to respondent No.4, who is the father of the corpus, we have directed the 3rd respondent-Station House Officer, Srikakulam II Town Police Station, to produce the corpus by name Prasanna Jahnavi before the Court today i.e., on

28.01.2026. In compliance of the said direction, the corpus is produced before the Court today by the Police. We have again interacted with the corpus in our chambers in isolation. She denied that her parents are forcing her to sign the divorce papers, as alleged by the petitioner. We have also allowed the petitioner to interact with the corpus in our chambers. Both of them interacted for some time. The corpus expressed her willingness before the petitioner clearly stating that she does not want to continue her relationship with the petitioner, as he is repeatedly filing cases against her and dragging her to the Court. She stated before us also that as the petitioner has been repeatedly filing cases against her that she is fed up with his conduct and that she does not want to continue her relationship with him. Thereafter, at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, we have also allowed the counsel of the petitioner also to interact with the corpus. The corpus expressed the same intention and decision before the learned counsel for the petitioner also. Finally, she clearly and unequivocally stated that unless her parents agree that she will not join the company of the petitioner and if the petitioner exhibits the same conduct of repeatedly filing cases against her and drag her to the Court, as the health of her parents is being damaged and as her health is also being affected that she is not willing to continue her relationship with him. She clearly stated with her free will and volition that she intends to live and stay with her parents only. As she is a major aged about 22 years, she is free to take a decision as to with whom she wants to live, stay and reside. As she clearly stated that she intends to live with her parents and stay with them, we have no other option except to permit her to stay and live with her parents.

4. We do not see any valid ground in this writ petition to entertain the same. We seriously deprecate the practice of repeatedly filing similar petitions by the petitioner and unnecessarily dragging the corpus to the Court. The petitioner shall desist filing repeated cases against the corpus before the Court without any valid reason. If he got any grievance relating to his matrimonial rights, he has to pursue his remedy before the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance.

5. Therefore, in view of the clear intention expressed by the corpus, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition filed for Habeas Corpus.

6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

_____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

Date: 28.01.2026 MDP