Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
T. VINOD KUMAR, J.
Sure Srinivasa Rao - Petitioner
Vs.
The Station House Officer - Respondent
Writ Petition No.12599 of 2025
Decided On : 11-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: K KISHANMAYEE
For the Respondent: GP FOR HOME
The court emphasized the balance between parental rights and individual autonomy, affirming the state's responsibility to ensure health and safety.
Headnote:(A) Relevant laws - Not explicitly stated in the judgment.
(B) Principle of care: parental rights vs. individual autonomy - The court intertwined parental claims of neglect with the individual's right to live autonomously.
(C) Medical care and protection - The state has a duty to ensure the health and safety of vulnerable individuals.
Facts of the case:
The writ petition was filed by parents claiming their daughter, L.Pravalika, was being neglected by her husband, L.Venkata Chalapati Rao, who they allege is preventing her from receiving medical treatment.
Findings of Court:
The court ordered the admission of L.Pravalika and her child into Gandhi Hospital for medical care.
Issues: The primary issues include the alleged confinement and neglect of L.Pravalika and her articulated desire to remain with her husband.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the autonomy of individuals must be respected, while also ensuring that necessary medical care is provided; it instructed measures for ongoing support and security for L.Pravalika and her children.
Result: The writ petition was disposed of with directions for medical care and security provisions for the family.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners' concern for daughter's health. - What are the allegations made by the petitioners regarding L.Pravallika's situation? (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. investigation into confinement and health status. - What actions did the court take in response to the petitioners' claims? (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court orders medical admission and treatment. - What were the findings of the medical professionals regarding L.Pravallika and her child? (Para 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. mother and child showed significant health recovery. - How did the health improve after hospital intervention? (Para 9) |
| 5. medical reports indicate need for treatment and care. - What were the findings of the medical professionals regarding L.Pravallika and her child? (Para 11) |
| 6. medical reports on delivery and condition of mother/baby. - What were the findings of the medical professionals regarding L.Pravallika and her child? (Para 12 , 13) |
| 7. protective measures for family against threats. - What measures were ordered by the court to ensure the safety of L.Pravallika and her children? (Para 17 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. court directed protection and welfare measures for family. - What measures were ordered by the court to ensure the safety of L.Pravallika and her children? (Para 18) |
| 9. government intervention for welfare and safety. - What measures were ordered by the court to ensure the safety of L.Pravallika and her children? (Para 21 , 22) |
| 10. writ petition disposed with no costs. - What is the final order of the court regarding the writ petition? (Para 23 , 24) |
ORDER :
T. VINOD KUMAR, J.
1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners claiming themselves to be the parents of Smt.L.Pravalika, who is stated to have married one L.Venkata Chalapati Rao against their wishes and living with him; and that her husband – Sri L.Venkata Chalapati Rao is not providing their daughter necessary medical treatment and is not allowing her daughter to come out of the house by locking the premises whenever he is going out.
2. The petitioners by the present Writ Petition further claim that their daughter’s husband – Sri L.Venkata Chalapati Rao is suffering from psychopathic problem and as such their daughter should be saved from the hands of her husband and allow them to provide necessary medical treatment to their daughter.
3. On the petitioners approaching this Court with the aforesaid prayer, this Court by taking note of the claim made by the petitioners, by order dt. 25.04.2025 directed the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee (HCLSC), to visit the house of L.Pravallika, who is stated to be residing at ‘Padmavathi Pride, Plot No.418, Mathrusree Nagar, Hafeezpet, Miyapur, Hyderabad, and record her statement on the aspect of whether she is being confined to her house and not being allowed to come out of house by her husband and also not being provided with medical treatment by her husband as alleged by the petitioners and to submit her report to this Court by 28.04.2025.
4. On 28.04.2025, the Secretary had submitted her report in relation to her visit to the house and the interaction she had with L.Pravallika and her husband Sri L.Venkata Chalapati Rao on 26.04.2025.
5. By the report submitted by the Secretary, HCLSC, it has been stated that L.Pravallika had denied the claim of petitioners of she being confined to her house by her husband; and that she intends to live with her husband - Sri L.Venkata Chalapathi Rao only and they are apprehending threat to their life from 1st petitioner.
6. The Secretary, HCLSC, by her report further stated that Smt.L.Pravallika is in advance stage of pregnancy, suffering from severe varicose veins problem and appears to be very weak, anemic and lien. By the report, it is stated that even the child who is stated to be two years old appears to be weak and lean and suffering from malnutrition.
7. This Court, taking note of the aforesaid report submitted by the Secretary, HCLSC, had directed that L.Pravallika and her two year old child – Ayaan Kasyap be admitted
