LAWS(APH)-1966-9-30

Y NARASIMHA RAO Vs. GONA MANIKYAMMA

Decided On September 05, 1966
Y.NARASIMHA RAO Appellant
V/S
GONA MANIKYAMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this petition under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are rather unusual. There are two petitioners. The 1st respondent is the mother-in-law of the 1st petitioner, Y. Narasimha Rao. The and respondent is the State of Andhra Pradesh, which is neither a necessary nor a proper party to this petition. In this petition it is prayed that this Court may issue a direction in the nature of habeas corpus for the production of a minor girl Yadla Varalakshmi, who is in the custody of the 1st respondent, before the Court and set her at large by handing over the girl to the petitioners. The material allegations in the affidavit of Y. Narasimharao filed in support of the petition are shortly as follows and the affidavit is filed on behalf of the 2nd petitioner also.

(2.) The minor child is about 6 to 7 years old. It is alleged in the affidavit that the 1st petitioner married one Padmavathi, the daughter of the 1st respondent who has originally a resident of Goddapolem (East Godavari District) in the year 1958 at Premnagar, Hyderabad. After the marriage the 1st petitioner and his wife lived at Vittal Adi, Narayanaguda and the daughter who is the minor in question was born to them in the year 1959 and was named Varalakshmi. While cooking food on a kerosene stove the clothes of Padmavathi caught fire and she received serious burns with the result she died at the Osmania Hospital, Hyderabad. It is alleged in the affidavit that the 1st petitioner, the husband of Padmavathi, tried to rescue her and while doing so, received burns and he was also admitted in the Osmania Hospital and was an inpatient therein for about two months. During the period 1st petitioner was in hospital, his neighbours and friends used to bring his daughter to him. She was about 1 years old at that time. The 1st respondent who is the mother-in- law of the 1st petitioner, came to see in the hospital and pretending to take interest in the child asked for the 1st petitioner's permission to keep the child with her temporarily on the ground that he had no female member in his house to look after the child to which the 1st petitioner agreed. After he was discharged from the hospitalhe asked for the return of the child to him but the child was concealed by the 1st respondent and evasive answers were given. Then the 1st petitioner reported the matter at the Police Station and the 1st respondent requested the 1st petitioner to keep the child with her till he married again. On the advice of the Station House Officer, he agreed to her suggestion.

(3.) After sometime in 1961 the 1st respondent went to Kakinada with the child and she came into contact with the and petitioner, Pachipulusu Venkateswara Rao, a Vysya, who carries on business in ghee and who is childless. It is alleged that the 1st respondent sold the minor child about 1 years ago to the 2nd petitioner for Rs. 500 and gave away the child to him to be brought up by him as his own child and thus abandoned the child after having the custody for about two months. It is asserted in the affidavit that the 1st respondent represented to the 2nd petitioner that both the father (1st petitioner) and the mother of the child died in the hospital on account of burns and the child was an orphan. We will consider presently whether this allegation is true. The 1st petitioner married again in 1963 and went to the 1st respondent and asked for the custody of the child. But the 1st respondent told him that the child had died due to shock on account of the loss of her mother. Believing the story the 1st petitioner kept quiet. We will presently consider whether this allegation is true. It is next alleged that the 2nd petitioner shifted to Hyderabad in February, 1966 and got the child admitted in Holy Mary Convent, Saifabad. The 2nd petitioner was taking care of the child and was bringing up the child as his own. The 1st respondent after coming to know that the 2nd petitioner was residing at Hyderabad itself, started demanding money or return of the child. The 2nd petitioner then made enquires and found out that the father of the girl (the 1st petitioner) is alive and after finding out his address met him along with the child and narrated the story as to how he came into custody of the child and requested the 1st petitioner to permit him to bring up the child. The 1st petitioner agreed to the request; it is added that the child was coming to the 1st petitioner daily and he was also taking care of her. The next allegation is that on nth May, 1966, the 1st respondent went to the house of the 2nd petitioner and demanded money or return of the child and picked up a quarrel. The 2nd petitioner reported the matter to the Police and the 1st respondent was charge-sheeted in Petty Case No. 353 of 1966 and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 3 on 13th May, 1966, by the Third City Magistrate, Hyderabad.