Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Deepala Koteswara Rao vs The State Of Ap on 27 February, 2026
Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
1
APHC010043482026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3558]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
WRIT PETITION NO: 2513/2026
Between:
1. DEEPALA KOTESWARA RAO, S/O LATE VEERABHADRA RAO
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC RETIRED HEAD MASTER, R/O FLAT
NO. 203, KINATICNEST APARTMENT, VSR AND NVR COLLEGE
ROAD, ITHANAGAR, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522001
2. DEEPALA SARALA DEVI, W/O DEEPALA KOTESWARA RAO AGED
ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O FLAT NO. 203,
KINATICNEST APARTMENT, VSR AND NVR COLLEGE ROAD,
ITHANAGAR, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 522001
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 522238
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH,
MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522503
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR DISTRICT,
GUNTUR.522001
4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TENALI POLICE STATION,
TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522001
2
5. MEDISETTY RAVI TEJA, S/O M CHANDRASEKHAR, HINDU, AGED
ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO. 201, MOURYA CITY HOMES,
NEAR CURRENT OFFICE, PALAKALURU ROAD, GUJJANAGULLA,
GUNTUR TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522001 CELL NO.
9494609615.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of writ of Habeas Corpus directing the
Respondents 3 and 4 to produce the minor grand children 1) Medisetty
Renesh Arya aged about 11 years and 2) Medisetty Gowtham Sai aged about
7 years before this Honble Court upon such production to hand over their
custody to the petitioners/maternal grandparents forthwith, declare that the
continued withholding and forcible custody of the minor children secretly by
the 5 Respondent (father who is having criminal record) is illegal, arbitrary,
unconstitutional violation of principles of natural justice and violative of child
welfare and contrary to Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 and
consequently direct the Respondents 3 and 4 to render all necessary police
assistance for restoration of custody of the minor children to the petitioners
and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. P V RAGHU RAM
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL
3
The Court made the following:
ORDER:- (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) This writ petition for Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking direction to respondents 3 and 4-police officials to produce the two minor children by name Medisetty Renesh Arya, aged about 11 years and Medisetty Gowtham Sai, aged about 7 years before the Court and to give their custody to the petitioners.
2. Heard Sri P.V.Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the office of learned Advocate General for official respondents 1 to 4 and unofficial respondent No.5 is present before this Court today voluntarily.
3. Earlier, when the matter came up for admission on 13.02.2026, this Court has directed the 4th respondent-Station House Officer of Tenali II Town Police Station to produce the above two minor children before the Court today. As per the said direction, the two minor children are produced before the Court today.
4. As per the case pleaded by the petitioners, they are the maternal grandparents of the two minor children. The 5th respondent is the father of the minor children and the marriage between the 5th respondent and the mother of the minor children, who is the daughter of the petitioners was dissolved by way of decree of divorce passed by the civil Court in the month of August, 2025 and since then, the mother along with the two minor children have been living with the petitioners in their house. It is stated that after the divorce, the 5th respondent has taken away the two minor children from the house of the petitioners in the month of August, 2025 two days after grant of decree of divorce. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed seeking the aforesaid relief.
45. As the two minor children are produced before the Court today, we have interacted with the two minor children and questioned them as to where they are staying now. They stated that they are residing in a hostel in Vuyyuru and that they are studying in a school. They also stated that the 5 th respondent, who is their father, admitted them in the school and in the hostel. To a pointed question as to with whom they are willing to take stay i.e. whether with the 5th respondent, who is their father or with the petitioners, who are their maternal grandparents, both the children have categorically stated that they are willing to stay with the 5 th respondent, who is their father. They refused to stay with the petitioners, who are their maternal grandparents. The 5th respondent, who is the father and natural guardian, is entitled to the custody of the two minor children.
6. When it is questioned as to where the mother of the children is now residing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that she is residing in Hyderabad as she is working in Hyderabad and she is coming to the house of the parents in the weekend. Therefore, admittedly the mother of the children is not residing with the children and she is not taking care of them. She has been residing in Hyderabad. It is also clearly stated by the petitioners in the writ petition that after the divorce, that their daughter intends to marry a person by name Chintakridi Vinaya Kumar, who is working in Hyderabad. Therefore, it is now clear that she is not taking care of the two minor children and she left them to their fate and went away to Hyderabad. So, the 5th respondent, who is the father, has been taking care of the two minor children. He is also providing education to them and also admitted them in the hostel. The children also expressed their intention to live with their father only. Further, when it is stated that the children were taken away by the 5th respondent in the month of August, 2025, the petitioners have approached now belatedly by way of filing this writ petition for Habeas Corpus. Therefore, we absolutely see no bonafides on the part of the petitioners in filing this writ petition at this belated stage and more particularly when the 5th respondent has been taking care of them and looking after the welfare of the two minor 5 children. We have to give priority and importance to the will and wish of the minor children, who expressed their intention to live with their father. Although it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as there are some criminal cases pending against the 5th respondent, that it is not safe to keep the children in his custody, the said cases are filed at the instance of the wife of the 5th respondent. So, it cannot be a valid ground to give the custody of the minor children to the petitioners.
7. It is not found that the two minor children are in the illegal custody or detention of the 5th respondent against to their wish. Therefore, this writ petition for Habeas Corpus is not maintainable. Further, the petitioners have already filed a Guardian Original Petition before the competent civil Court and it was dismissed for default. There is nothing to indicate on record that they have filed any petition for restoration to pursue the same. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that even the mother of the minor children filed a Guardian Original Petition before the civil Court.
8. So, in the said facts and circumstances, the writ petition is absolutely devoid of merit and it is liable to be dismissed.
9. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY _____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date: 27.02.2026 ARR 6 259 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 2513/2026 Date: 27.02.2026 ARR