logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 232 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Writ Petition No. 1830 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Parties : Battula @ Challa Gayathri Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home Secretariat of AP, Amaravathi & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: P. Gopala Krishna, Advocate. For the Respondents: The Advocate General.
Date of Judgment : 12-02-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.

1. This writ petition for habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking direction to the unofficial respondents herein to produce the corpus by name Challa Charan Aditya, who is minor son of the petitioner, aged about 14 months, before the Court and to give his custody to her.

2. Heard Sri P.Gopala Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for official respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Despite service of notice on unofficial respondent Nos. 5 to 9, they did not enter their appearance. Thus, the unofficial respondents did not contest this writ petition and oppose the prayer of the petitioner.

3. As per the case pleaded by the writ petitioner, she is the legally wedded wife of a person by name Challa Venkateswara Rao. The corpus by name Challa Charan Aditya was born to them during their wedlock on 27-10-2024 and that he is now aged about 14 months. After birth of the child, the husband of the petitioner died. So, the petitioner has to live at her parents' house as disputes cropped up between her and her parents-in-law who are respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein. The child is now in the custody of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 who are paternal grandparents of the corpus. Alleging that the unofficial respondents are not giving custody of the minor child to the petitioner and they have illegally kept the child in their custody, the petitioner has filed this present writ petition seeking the aforesaid relief.

4. As noticed supra, unofficial respondent Nos. 5 to 9, on whom notice of this writ petition was served, did not enter their appearance in this writ petition and they did not oppose this writ petition. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that it is a fact that the corpus is minor son of the petitioner. He would further submit that the husband of the petitioner committed suicide and because of the said unnatural death of the husband of the petitioner, disputes cropped up between the petitioner and her parents-in-law and the petitioner left the house of her parents-in-law and has been residing in the house of her parents and the child is now with respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

5. It is not in dispute that the corpus is a 14 months child. Therefore, the petitioner, who is mother, being a single parent, is the natural guardian of the corpus. Further, as the corpus is only a months baby of 14 months old, he needs care and custody of his mother. So, as per law, the petitioner, being the mother and natural guardian of the corpus, is entitled to his custody. Even though the petitioner left the house of the unofficial respondents because of the disputes arose between them and has been residing in the house of her parents, the unofficial respondents cannot keep the corpus, who is a minor child aged about 14 months, with them without giving his custody to his mother.

6. Having regard to the age of the corpus, who is only a 14 months old child, as welfare of the child is always a paramount point for consideration in disputes of like nature claiming custody of the child, we deed it appropriate to order the unofficial respondents to give custody of the corpus, who is a minor child, to the petitioner who is his mother and natural guardian.

7. It is relevant in this context to consider the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in Vivek Kumar Chaturvedi and another Vs. State of U.P. and others(2025 INSC 159). In the said case also, the custody of the child was with grandparents and it is alleged that they are taking good care of the child. However, the Apex Court observed that the father, being natural guardian of the child, is best suited for having custody of the minor child and accordingly his custody was given to the father with some visitation rights to grandparents.

8. In the present case also, as we have observed supra, considering the age of the corpus, who is only a 14 months child, we deem it appropriate to order the unofficial respondents to give custody of the corpus to the petitioner who is his mother and natural guardian.

9. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and unofficial respondent Nos. 5 to 9, in whose custody the corpus by name Challa Charan Aditya is, are directed to give custody of the child by name Challa Charan Aditya to the petitioner within three days from the date of this order i.e. on or before 15-02-2026, failing which respondent No. 4-the Station House Officer, Mylavaram Police Station, NTR District, is directed to take custody of the child from the unofficial respondents and give his custody to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
 
  CDJLawJournal