THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.31787 OF 2025 Mr. M.A. Shakeel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Mr. T. Ravi Kumar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent Nos.1 to 5.

Mr. Pattabhi Vemulapati, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.6 to 9.

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The petitioner claims to be the mother of the alleged detenue and seeks production of the alleged detenue who is her daughter/second child, who is illegally detained by the respondent Nos.7 and 8 (relatives of the respondent No.6). The petitioner also claims to be the wife of the respondent No.6.

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.6 were in a live-in relationship and the respondent No.6 is presently married to another person.

respondent No.6 had three children. The first and second child i.e., a boy and a girl (alleged detenue) were voluntarily given by the petitioner to the respondent No.6. The third child is staying with the petitioner/mother. The male child/first child was brought up by the respondent Nos.6 and 9 and the second child (alleged detenue) was brought up by the respondent Nos.7 and 8.

4. The male child and the alleged detenue have been with the respondent No.6/his relatives since 17 years.

5. The Court is informed that the alleged detenue is now 19 years of age and is a resident of the United States of America (USA), more specifically a student at the Fordham University, in New York City, USA.

6. There are several questions regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. First and foremost, the alleged detenue is an adult who is more than 19 years of age. Hence, the Court can certainly not issue any direction for the production of the alleged detenue since she is capable to decide whether she Second, the alleged detenue is presently staying in the USA. Several documents have been placed before us to corroborate this submission. Hence, forcing the alleged detenue to travel to India only for the satisfaction of the petitioner’s wish would be unnecessary and unreasonable. Third, the petitioner has also sought for DNA test of the respondent No.6. The Court fails to understand the implication of this prayer, particularly in a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Fourth, the exchange of mails/letters between the petitioner and the alleged detenue would also show that the petitioner has other avenues open to her to persuade the alleged detenue to resume contact with the petitioner.

7. The Writ Petition does not fulfill any of the requirements for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus on the respondents. This is not only a private dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.6 but also a case where the Court cannot compel an adult person to be produced in Court in a Writ for Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. W.P.No.31787 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed.

9. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J _____________________________

GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J DATE: 27.10.2025 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.31787 OF 2025 Date: 27.10.2025