Yerrabothula Srihari Prasad v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD Writ Petition No.4060 of 2016 Dated 15th June, 2016 Between:

Yerrabothula Srihari Prasad .....Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Babuji Tenneti for Sri P.V.Krishnama Chary Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Special Government Pleader (AP) Counsel for Respondent No.4: Sri Koti Reddy Idamakanti The Court made the following:

ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) This petition is filed for a writ of habeas corpus by directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to produce the petitioner's wife, namely, Naga Padmini, aged 21 years, purportedly under the illegal custody of respondent No.4.

On 07.06.2016, the learned counsel for respondent No.4 has undertaken to inform his client to produce his daughter before this Court. Accordingly, on 14.06.2016, respondent No.4 has produced his daughter, Naga Padmini, in the Court and at 4.15 pm, we have

interviewed said Naga Padmini in-camera in our chamber. She has stated before us that initially she left with the petitioner on her own volition, that as she was not properly treated, she has left the company of the petitioner on her own and that she is presently living with her parents comfortably. She has further stated that respondent No.4, her father, had absolutely no role whatsoever in her leaving the company of the petitioner and that she has no intention of re-joining the petitioner in future. The case was directed to be listed for admission today.

At the hearing, we have informed the learned counsel for the petitioner about the stand taken by Naga Padmini before us incamera. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that respondent No.4 has not illegally detained Naga Padmini and therefore the petitioner failed to make out any case for issue of writ of habeas corpus.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate legal remedies, if he is so advised. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J G.SHYAM PRASAD, J 15th June, 2016 VGB