B.Amrutha v. The State Of Telangana,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K. JAISWAL Writ Petition No.14755 of 2017 DATED:12-07-2017 Between:

B. Amrutha ... Petitioner And The State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary Home Department Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad and others ... Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PEITITONER: Mr. R.G. Shiva Kumar COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 to 5: A.G.P. attached to the office of the Advocate General (TS) COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NOs.6 and 7: - COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.8 : Mr. S.R. Sanku THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER: (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) This writ petition is filed for issue of habeas corpus directing the respondents to forthwith produce Smt. B. Vijayalakshmi, W/o. Late B. Parameshwara Rao ("the alleged detenue") before this Court and set her at liberty.

2.

In the wake of the allegations made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, who is the co-sister of the alleged detenue, that the latter is not mentally sound and she was forcibly taken custody by respondent Nos.6 to 8, who are sisters and mother respectively of the alleged detenue, this Court has passed an order on 25.4.2017 directing the Superintendent or in-charge of the Institute of Mental Health Hospital, Erragadda, Hyderabad, to constitute a Medical Board, assess the physical and mental condition of the alleged detenue and file a report before this Court by the next date of hearing. A further direction was issued to respondent No.4 that after the medical assessment, the custody of the detenue shall be handed over to her mother - respondent No.8 with whom she is presently staying. In pursuance of the said direction, the Superintendent, Government Hospital for Mental Care, Erragadda, Hyderabad, submitted a medical report wherein it is stated as under:

"She was examined by a panel of psychiatrist and psychologist and was subjected to psychological tests. She is opined to be suffering from paranoid schizophrenia for which treatment has been started. During her stay in hospital she was found to have associated physical problems (hypertension and diabetes mellitus) for which she was referred to physician and treatment was started for the same. At present patient has both physical and psychiatric problem. In view of physical problem (i.e., uncontrolled hypertension and diabetes) patient is being discharged and handed over to family member (mother) by name J.M. Sridevi, W/o. Late J.V. Muthyalu and advised to continue treatment for physical and mental problem and come for follow up once in 15 days by psychiatrist." 3.

When the writ petition came up before us yesterday, we have directed respondent No.8 to produce the alleged detenue before this Court to enable it to assess the condition of the alleged detenue and elicit her views. Accordingly, the alleged detenue is produced before the Court. She has answered the preliminary questions, such as her name, her educational

qualifications etc., to our satisfaction. When she was questioned as to whether she was forcibly taken away by respondent Nos.6 to 8, she replied in the negative and stated that she is willingly staying with them and that she does not want to live with the petitioner. Mr. R.G. Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the alleged detenue is not in proper mental condition to decide about the persons with whom she wants to live and that the views expressed by her in the Court are due to the influence of respondent Nos.6 to 8. We are afraid, we cannot accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

While it is not possible for us to assess the exact mental condition of the alleged detenue, we are at least able to assess the mind of the alleged detenue to the extent of her preference to live with, between respondent Nos.6 to 8, who are no other than her own sisters and mother on one side, and the petitioner, who is her co-sister. Assuming that the mental condition of the alleged detenue is not proper and sound, it is always better that she is kept in the custody of her sisters and mother, rather than with the petitioner, who compared to respondent Nos.6 to 8 is a distant relation.

4.

In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate legal remedies, if any, available to her in law.

__________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J _________________________ M.S.K. JAISWAL, J 12-7-2017 bnr