IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.34769 of 2014 BETWEEN M.Jagadish Raj AND ... PETITIONER The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner alleges inaction on the part of the police with reference to his complaint, Ex.P1, dated 07.10.2014. A reading of the complaint itself shows that there appears to be a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife and his wife appears to have left the matrimonial home along with her daughter. Petitioner now states that his daughter is not allowed to meet him and she is not being taken care of by his wife and that the said daughter is at the risk of her health and hence, filed the present complaint. The complaint also speaks briefly that petitioner is receiving threatening calls from his brother-in-law and his associates not to come to their home to see his daughter. The said complaint is allegedly not investigated by the police. Hence, the writ petition.
3. As is evident from the complaint, the grievance of the petitioner appears to be with regard to the custody of the minor child. It is also evident from the averments of the petition that petitioner has already filed O.P.No.1149 of 2014 before the Family Court, Hyderabad, seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
4. Since the gravamen of the complaint of the petitioner is only seeking custody to look after the minor daughter, in my view, approaching the police cannot be a remedy and petitioner must approach the competent court, which can look into the petitioner’s grievance and make appropriate arrangement for custody or visiting rights, as the case may be. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition as the police cannot take action in lieu of the remedy available to the petitioner before a competent court.
5. So far as the allegation of threatening calls from the petitioner’s brother-in-law and his associates are concerned, except a brief reference in a sentence no details are forthcoming. If the petitioner is so advised, it is open for him to make a specific complaint in that regard if there are any threats to him in future.
6. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate competent court for custody of the minor child or for visitation rights, as the case may be. Similarly, petitioner is also at liberty to make complaint before the jurisdictional Station House Officer, if there are any future instances, where petitioner receives any threat to his life, as alleged.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
November 18, 2014 VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J LMV