Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 22006
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
K Suresh Reddy, A Hari Haranadha Sarma, JJ
Mareedubuela Prasanthi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 14901/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kota Krishna Deepthi
For the Respondents:Ch S S V Prasad, Advocate General
In habeas corpus petitions involving the custody of a minor child, the court may direct the production and transfer of custody to the parent, while relegating the parties to competent courts for formal adjudication of custodial rights.
Headnote:The case involves a petition for a writ of habeas corpus sought to secure the custody of a minor child allegedly detained by private respondents. The court exercised its jurisdiction to address the immediate custodial status of the minor. The primary issue concerns the legal custody of the minor child. The court determined that in matters of habeas corpus involving minors, the production of the child and restoration of custody to the biological parent is the central objective, without prejudice to future litigation. The writ petition is closed with liberty granted to the parties to approach the appropriate family court to resolve custodial disputes according to law.
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K. Suresh Reddy)
The present Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus to produce the petitioner’s minor child, namely Master Mareedu Lohitaksha Manikanta, who is allegedly detained by respondent Nos.4 to 6.
Heard Ms. Kota Krishna Deepthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ch. S.S.V. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 6 and Sri Krishna Praneeth, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing from the office of learned Advocate General.
Pursuant to the orders passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, dated 28.05.2026, respondent No.4 and the minor child, who is aged about 2 years, are produced before this Court and handed over the custody of the child to the petitioner.
In view of the same, the present Writ Petition is closed, granting liberty to the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 to work out their remedies before the appropriate Court, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
