AND Sri Sai Reddy Ravindar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner.

Sri Swaroop Oorilla, the learned Special Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos.1-6.

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

The petitioner claims to be the mother of the alleged detenue who is 10 years old. The petitioner further claims that the detenue is in the custody of the respondent No.7, who is the paternal grand-father of the detenue from the petitioner’s first marriage.

2. We have considered the written instructions placed by the learned Special Government Pleader. The instructions states that the petitioner was married to the son of the 7^th respondent and gave birth to the detenue on 14.11.2014. The son of the 7^th respondent died on 31.05.2015. The petitioner got married again in 2017 and has a son and a daughter out of her second marriage. The written instructions further states that the detenue stayed with the petitioner in Hyderabad till April after which the petitioner spoke to the 7^th respondent and brought her daughter to the house of the 7^th respondent. The detenue is staying with the 7^th respondent since then and is studying in a local school.

3. We have seen the photographs placed by the learned Special Government Pleader of the detenue with her paternal grand-father. We do not find this to be a fit case for invoking the extraordinary powers of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The detention cannot be described as illegal under any circumstances even if it is assumed that the detenue was taken by the paternal grandfather–respondent No.7 against the wishes of the petitioner. A Writ of Habeas Corpus can only be filed in cases where the detention is either illegal or contrary to law.

4. The Supreme Court in Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others¹ relied on Gautam Kumar Das Vs. NCT of Delhi and Others² and Tejaswini Gaud and Others Vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and Others, (2019) 7 SCC 42 : 2019 INSC 630 and held, inter alia, that the extraordinary remedy of Habeas Corpus can be invoked seeking custody of a child where the child has been taken away from her natural guardian. The Supreme Court however also held that there can be no hard and fast rule with regard to the maintainability of the Habeas Corpus petition relating to custody of minor children and that each case would depend on its individual facts and circumstances.

5. As stated above, the petitioner, if aggrieved, can file appropriate proceedings before the jurisdictional Family Court. The present facts however are not fit for issue of the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

6. WP.No.20038 of 2025 is accordingly dismissed along with all connected applications. There shall be no order as to costs.

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J Date: 15.07.2025 PLV