SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 7343

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA,THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
Metkari Laxman – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 6651/2026



##PAGE1##

1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

AND

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.6651 OF 2026

DATE: 05.03.2026

Between:

Metkari Laxman

… Petitioner

And

The State of Telangana

Rep by its Principal Secretary,

Home Department, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Telangana

Secretariat, Hyderabad and five others

...Respondents

Mr. D.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr.M.Dinesh, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner.

Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, the learned Special Government Pleader representing the learned

Advocate General appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 5.

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. This Writ Petition was filed seeking a Writ of Habeas

Corpus for tracing the alleged detenue, and for a direction on

the respondent Nos.2 and 3 viz., the Director General of Police,

Lakdi ka pul, Hyderabad and the Superintendent of Police,

Sanga Reddy District, respectively, to constitute a special Police

Team for tracing the alleged detenue. The petitioner has also

prayed for providing medical treatment to the alleged detenue

##PAGE2##

2

for the purpose of termination of her pregnancy, in view of the

health condition of the alleged detenue.

2. The petitioner claims to be the father of the alleged

detenue, who is a minor girl of 16 years. The petitioner further

claims that the alleged detenue is in the illegal detention of the

respondent No.6.

3. After hearing the preliminary submissions made on behalf

of the parties, the Court had directed the learned Special

Government Pleader to produce the alleged detenue before the

Court today.

4. The alleged detenue was accordingly produced before the

Court. Considering the sensitive nature of the disclosures made

on behalf of the alleged detenue, the Court further directed that

the matter be heard in Chambers.

5. We have heard the submissions of the alleged detenue as

well as those of the mother of the alleged detenue.

6. The alleged detenue claimed that she had married the

respondent No.6 in Mumbai on 31.01.2026. The alleged

detenue also submitted that she is currently, five months

pregnant.

##PAGE3##

3

7. The alleged detenue further stated that she wanted to live

with the respondent No.6 and did not want to terminate her

pregnancy.

8. The alleged detenue’s mother expressed serious

reservations regarding the character of the respondent No.6 and

the future prospects of the alleged detenue in the event that she

leaves her parental home and continues to reside with the

respondent No.6.

9. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the

petitioner (father of the alleged detenue), the alleged detenue,

and her mother, and upon giving due consideration to the facts

of the case and the interest of the alleged detenue, who is a

minor girl aged 16 years and a student of Class IX at Kavita

High School, Bidar, Karnataka, we are of the considered view

that the alleged detenue should be returned to the custody of

the petitioner and the alleged detenue’s mother i.e., her parents.

The alleged detenue is admittedly a minor and the imminent

possibility of bearing a child would impact on her life and future

prospects.

10. We would have given due weightage to the wish of the

detenue not to terminate her pregnancy if the detenue had been

an adult. However, the more important consideration would

##PAGE4##

4

have to be the fact that the detenue is still a minor and a child

born to her at this stage of her life may have irreversible

consequences. We believe that the alleged detenue should

complete her education at this stage of her life rather than

starting life as a married woman.

11. We are alive to the fact of the limited scope of a Writ for

Habeas Corpus. Hence, we do not wish to give any opinion as

to whether the alleged detenue should be forced to terminate

her pregnancy as per the wishes of her parents. The only point

that we deem necessary to state is that any termination of

pregnancy shall be carried out in accordance with The Medical

Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as amended by The

Medical

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top