Bollina Gopi vs State Of Ap And Others

R. Raghunandan Rao, J

Heard Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.V. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent.

The petitioner moved this Court, by way of this writ petition, contending that his wife had been taken away by her father and that his wife is in the illegal custody of her father.

After notice, the alleged detenue and her father, who is arrayed as the 5th respondent herein, have appeared before this Court yesterday. We had interacted with the alleged detenue yesterday and had requested her to speak to her mother and the petitioner, before deciding as to whether she would want to go, or stay back with her father.

The alleged detenue refused to interact with either her mother or the petitioner. The matter was again called today and the alleged detenue and her father are present before this Court. It is reported by both sides that the alleged detenue and her mother have spoken to each other for some time. At the request of the alleged detenue, we have interacted with the alleged detenue in chambers.

The alleged detenue has expressed a clear-cut intent to stay back with her father and not to go with the petitioner.

In view of the fact that the alleged detenue is a major and in view of the fact that she has expressed a clear intention to stay back with her father, we do not find any reason to keep this writ petition alive.

Accordingly this writ petition is closed. Needless to say, all the parties are at liberty to avail of their remedies under law. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.