High CourtsDivision Bench(2026) 08 TEL CK 5972

Harika Rampuram vs State Of Telangana & Ors.

Telangana High Court · Decided on 4 August 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Moushumi Bhattacharya, J · Renuka Yara, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 25190 of 2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 677 words
1.

The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, who is natural mother and lawful guardian of the minor children/alleged detenues namely Ayushi Panjala and Avyay Panjala, aged about 13 years and 10 years, respectively. The alleged detenues Ayushi Panjala and Avyay Panjala, are the daughter and son, respectively, of the petitioner and the respondent No.9.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent No.9 informed the Court that the petitioner is presently residing in Dallas, Texas, United States of America, where she is employed. The respondent No.9, who is the father of the alleged detenues, is presently residing in Hyderabad. The petitioner sent the alleged detenues to India sometime in the month of May, 2026, to spend their summer vacation with their father, the respondent No.9. The alleged detenues were scheduled to return to the United States of America on 18.07.2026. However, the respondent No.9 did not permit the alleged detenues to return to the United States of America. The Court was further informed that the alleged detenues, who are presently in India, are students of a school in Dallas and are required to return to Dallas, as their school is scheduled to reopen on 12.08.2026.

3.

Considering the urgency and facts shown to us on 31.07.2026, we had directed the official respondents to produce the alleged detenues in Court today. The petitioner and the respondent No.9 are also present in Court today.

4.

We interacted with the alleged detenues in our chambers to protect their privacy and to ensure that they were comfortable during their interaction with the Court. Upon putting specific questions to the alleged detenues, both individually and jointly, namely, Ayushi Panjala and Avyay Panjala, they unequivocally expressed their desire to return to Dallas and to live with their mother (the petitioner). Both Ayushi Panjala and Avyay Panjala also made it clear that they wished to resume their schooling in Dallas. They further stated that they would like the respondent No.9 to visit them in Dallas, but reside in a separate house, so that they can spend a few weekends with the respondent No.9. Significantly, they also stated that they would still prefer to return to Dallas and reside with their mother, if the respondent No.9 is unwilling to visit Dallas.

5.

In view of the clear and unequivocal statements made by the alleged detenues, we deem it fit to direct the respondent No. 9 to hand over the custody of the alleged detenues, namely, Ayushi Panjala and Avyay Panjala, to the petitioner today itself. The official respondents shall ensure that both Ayushi Panjala and Avyay Panjala are handed over to the petitioner in Court today. Respondent No.9 is also directed to hand over the passports of the alleged detenues to the petitioner today. The petitioner and the respondent No.9 are present in Court.

Later:

6.

After we dictated the order in open Court and passed the direction, Mr. S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 9, who appeared for the first time in Court today, sought time to advance arguments on behalf of the respondent No.9. Learned counsel submitted that he had received the notice only yesterday.

7.

We deem it fit to record that this matter was taken up for consideration on 31.07.2026. The concerned Section issued Notice to the respondent No.9. It is also relevant to state that we heard the matter during the morning session today i.e., 04.08.2026, in the presence of the counsel appearing for the respondent No. 9. However, Mr. S. Surender Reddy was not present in Court at the time of hearing. In any event, the submissions made on behalf of the respondent No.9 looses relevance in view of the clear statements made by the alleged detenues that they want to reside with their mother/the petitioner in Dallas, USA and resume school in Dallas on or before 12.08.2026, i.e., when the school opens after the summer vacation.

8.

W.P.No.25190 of 2016, along with all pending applications, is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.