WP/33803/2025 of BAKKA VENKATA NARAYANA Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 21 December 2025

1. BAKKA VENKATA NARAYANA, S/O VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. D.NO. 3-76/B, KURAPPALEM VILLAGE, AREPALLI POST, CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT)

2. BAIDA VENKATA RAMANA, W/O SRINIVASA RAO AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC.HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO. 3-76/1, KURAPPALEM VILLAGE, AREPALLI POST, CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT)

...PETITIONER(S) AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAPATLA DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT)

3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHERUKUPALLI POLICE STATION, BAPATLA DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT)

4. BAKKA GANESH, S/O KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC.

PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O 5-79, GULLAPALLI,'GULLAPALLI (POST), CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT)

5. G VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O KATAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC.POLICE CONSTABLE,

R/O D.NO.76-14-6, INDIRA PRIYADARSHINI COLONY,

BHAVANIPURAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT

6. BAKKA VIJAYA, W/O KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O D.NO.5-79, GULLAPALLI, GULLAPALLI (POST), CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT)

...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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS declaring the action of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in not taking any action against Respondent No.4 to 6 despite furnishing the information that the Respondent No.4 to 6 are illegally detained the wife of the Petitioner No.l and son by name Rama Parvathi and Rutvik respectively in their illegal custody as nothing but illegal, high handed and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of The Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent Nos. 2 to 3 to produce Rama Parvathi and Rutvik before this Hon'ble Court forthwith and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. A K KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GHANTASALA UDAYA BHASKAR

2. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

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

This writ petition for Habeas Corpus has been filed to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not taking any action against respondent Nos.4 to 6 despite furnishing of information that respondent Nos.4 to 6 have illegally detained the corpus by name Rama Parvati and her minor child by name Ruthvik as illegal and consequently sought direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to produce the corpus by name Rama Parvathi and her minor child Ruthvik before the Court and to pass orders according to law.

2. Heard Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General appearing for official respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri G.Udaya Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing for unofficial respondent Nos.4 to 6.

3. The 1st petitioner is the brother of the 2nd petitioner. The corpus, by name Rama Parvathi is the daughter of the 2nd petitioner. It is the case of the petitioners that the marriage of the corpus by name Rama Parvathi was performed with the 1st petitioner on 13.05.2022 as per Hindu rites and customs and they begot a son by name Rutvik out of their lawful wedlock. As the corpus is interested in pursuing her studies, the 1st petitioner cooperated to pursue her studies and she pursued her D.Ed diploma. While so, on

22.04.2025, the corpus, Rama Parvathi went to attend a function at Kothapet in Guntur Town and thereafter, she did not return home. When the petitioners tried to contact her on her mobile phone, she was out of contact. Consequently, the 1st petitioner lodged a report before respondent No.3 - police and Crime No.50 of 2025 was registered on 27.04.2025 as woman missing case. A report was lodged by the 2nd petitioner before the PGRS on 09.06.2025. It is alleged that the corpus left the company of the 1st petitioner along with her son Ruthvik and all his efforts to trace their whereabouts went in vain. Alleging that the official respondents have not taken any appropriate action to trace them, the instant writ petition has been filed seeking the aforesaid relief.

4. When the writ petition came up for admission, while ordering notice to respondent Nos.4 to 6, the unofficial respondents, respondent No.3-Station House Officer of Cherukupalli Police Station, Bapatla District, was directed to produce the corpus, Rama Parvathi and the minor child, Ruthvik, who are said to have been in the illegal custody of respondent No.4, before the Court on 18.12.2025.

5. On 18.12.2025, the corpus Rama Parvathi voluntarily appeared before the Court, but the child was not produced by her stating that he was suffering from ill-health. The matter was ordered to be listed today i.e. on 22.12.2025 with a direction to the corpus Rama Parvathi to be present before the Court today along with the minor child. Today, she is present before the Court along with the minor child by name Ruthvik.

6. We have interacted with the corpus by name Rama Parvathi, who is a major, aged about 23 years. She has stated in the open Court emphatically that she and respondent No.4 by name Bakka Ganesh loved each other and as her father passed away that her mother, who is the 2nd petitioner did not agree for their marriage. So, she and respondent No.4 eloped and got married in the year 2021 and since then she has been living with him. They begot a boy child by name Ruthvik during their lawful wedlock. She further stated that the 2nd petitioner who is her mother has been forcing and compelling her to marry the 1st petitioner who is her maternal uncle and she refused for the same. She denied that the 1st petitioner married her on 13.05.2022 as pleaded in the writ petition. She has emphatically asserted that she has been living with respondent No.4 and his mother in her matrimonial home and the allegations made that she went away from the house on the pretext of attending a function and did not return home are absolutely false.

7. To a pointed question by the Court to the corpus whether she is willing to accompany the 2nd petitioner, who is her mother and stay with her, she emphatically refused to accompany her mother and stay with her. She also refused to accompany the 1st petitioner and stay with him. She stated that, with her free will and volition, she has been living with respondent No.4 who is her husband along with minor child Ruthvik, who was born to them.

8. Therefore, from the aforesaid submissions made by the corpus herself, openly in the Court, that she, with her free will and volition, has been living with respondent No.4 after marrying him and leading conjugal life with him and they begot a son by name Ruthvik, we are fully satisfied that she was not illegally detained or confined by respondent Nos.4 to 6 or any one and she has been voluntarily living with them.

9. Therefore, when it is not found that the corpus along with the minor child are not detained illegally or confined by the unofficial respondents herein, this writ petition for Habeas Corpus cannot be entertained and it is not maintainable.

10. Although we got a serious doubt on the genuineness of the plea taken by the 1st petitioner in his writ petition that he married the corpus, Rama Parvathi, on 13.05.2022 as per Hindu rites and customs, and that the minor child, Ruthvik was born to them, since it is a disputed question of fact, we are not going to give any finding on the merits of the said pleading. No evidence was also produced, prima facie, to show that any such marriage between the 1st petitioner and the corpus Rama Parvathi, was solemnized on 13.05.2022, as pleaded in the writ petition. If it is a false allegation, the Court seriously deprecates the said practice of filing false writ petitions with false allegations before the Court and dragging the corpus, who is a major who married respondent No.4 voluntarily with her free volition, to the Court.

11. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, and particularly in view of the statement that was given by the corpus, Rama Parvathi, before the Court, this Writ Petition is dismissed. The corpus is at liberty to join respondent No.4, along with her minor child Ruthvik, and lead her conjugal life. 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: 22.12.2025 KA

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA

WRIT PETITION NO: 33803/2025

Date: 22.12.2025 KA