AP High Court Dismisses Habeas Corpus for Minor Children, Imposes ₹50,000 Cost for Suppressing MOU and Telangana HC Order
The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a mother's habeas corpus petition for custody of her two minor sons, finding she had concealed a signed MOU granting custody to the father and a Telangana HC order quashing criminal proceedings against him.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi, dismissed a habeas corpus writ petition filed by a mother seeking the return of her two minor sons from their father's custody. The Bench found that the petitioner, Smt. Vasabhaktula Swathi, had deliberately withheld from her representation two documents of direct relevance: a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 26 March 2025, in which she had agreed that custody of the children would remain solely with her husband, and an order dated 18 September 2025 of the High Court for the State of Telangana in Crl.P. No. 9564 of 2025, which had treated the MOU as a full and final settlement and quashed the criminal proceedings against the husband. The court held the petition was not maintainable and imposed costs of ₹50,000, rejecting the petitioner's in-court apology as insufficient.
The Petition and How It Came Before the Bench
The writ petition was not filed in the ordinary way. It originated from a letter dated 28 June 2026 that Smt. Vasabhaktula Swathi addressed directly to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The Registry received it and registered the matter as a “Taken-up Writ Petition” under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, treating the letter as a habeas corpus petition.
In her letter, the petitioner identified herself as the wife of Sri Tanuku Ravi Kumar, a film industry professional. She stated that the couple had two minor sons — Tanuku Charan Rajeev, aged 10 years, and Tanuku Dansuh Vahin, aged 12 years. She said her husband had become embroiled in a criminal case registered by the Rajamahendravaram CID Police under Crime No. 22/2024. According to her, he had fled to evade the investigation and had taken both children away from her care without her consent. She described complete ignorance of their whereabouts and expressed grave concern for their safety while in the custody of someone who was, she said, actively evading law.
The prayer in the letter was for directions to the CID Police and other respondents to trace the children, produce them before the court, and restore their lawful custody to her as their mother and natural guardian. The letter made no mention of any prior settlement with her husband, any MOU, or any proceedings before any other court.
What the Police and the Bench Discovered on 23 July 2026
When the matter came before the Division Bench, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, Sri J. Krishna Praneeth, appeared for the State respondents and the Station House Officer of Prakash Nagar Police Station, Central Zone, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. Based on written instructions from that station, the AGP disclosed a material fact the petitioner had chosen not to mention.
Sri Tanuku Ravi Kumar had filed Crl.P. No. 9564 of 2025 before the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash FIR No. 175 of 2025 dated 7 July 2025, registered at the WPS-IT Corridor Police Station, Cyberabad, for offences under Sections 85 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Smt. Vasabhaktula Swathi was herself impleaded as respondent No. 3 in that petition. The Telangana High Court allowed the petition on 18 September 2025 and quashed the proceedings against the husband.
The basis for that quashing order was an MOU dated 26 March 2025, signed by both parties, which the Telangana High Court treated as a full and final settlement of all disputes. Under the MOU, the husband agreed to pay ₹10,00,000 to the wife in two instalments, along with ₹30,000 per month for twelve months from June 2025 to May 2026. Clause 4 of the MOU expressly stated that the custody and care of both children “shall remain solely with the Husband.” The wife simultaneously waived any right to claim custody, agreed not to initiate criminal proceedings, and agreed not to seek maintenance.
The Telangana High Court had noted that a notice to the petitioner in Crl.P. No. 9564 of 2025 was returned as “unclaimed” and was treated as duly served. The petitioner had accordingly not appeared in those proceedings.
On 23 July 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court passed detailed interim directions: it impleaded the husband as respondent No. 5 and the SHO, Prakash Nagar Police Station, as respondent No. 6. It directed respondent Nos. 4 and 6 to produce the children on the next date from whoever held them — respondent No. 5 or his parents. It also directed the Member Secretary of the Andhra Pradesh Legal Services Committee to contact the petitioner on her mobile number and extend legal assistance.
The Petitioner's Conduct Before the Bench on 28 July 2026
When the matter was taken up in the morning session of 28 July 2026, the petitioner appeared as party-in-person. Her husband, her mother-in-law, and both children were present in court pursuant to the earlier directions. The petitioner told the Bench that she could not understand or interact in English and that she knew only Telugu. On that representation, the court directed the AP High Court Legal Services Committee to provide her a Legal Aid Counsel, preferably a lady advocate, to explain the 23 July 2026 order to her. The matter was adjourned to 2.15 p.m. that day. The petitioner was also permitted to meet her children in the interim.
After lunch, the petitioner appeared with the court-appointed Legal Aid Counsel, Smt. Santhi Sree Vallabhaneni. The position shifted immediately. Learned counsel informed the Bench that the petitioner in fact knows English. The petitioner herself produced copies of the MOU dated 26 March 2025 and the Telangana High Court order dated 18 September 2025 to the Legal Aid Counsel — documents she had not disclosed in her original representation. The Bench then had her read the MOU aloud in English. She read it fluently.
The Bench asked her directly why the MOU and the Telangana order had not been disclosed in her representation dated 28 June 2026. Her answer, as recorded in the judgment, was that she did not consider it relevant to disclose.
The Bench's Reasoning
Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari, writing for the Bench, held that once the petitioner and respondent No. 5 had mutually agreed in the MOU that custody of the children shall remain solely with the husband, the children could not be said to be in any illegal custody of the father. Clause 4 of the MOU was unambiguous on the point. The financial settlement under the MOU had also partly worked: the petitioner herself confirmed before the Bench that she had already received ₹5 lakhs from her husband.
Against this background, the Bench found the habeas corpus petition not maintainable. The court was direct: the petitioner had misused the process of the court by suppression of material facts. Her representation had caused the entire judicial machinery to be set in motion — directions were issued, police respondents were called upon to produce the children, the husband and his mother were required to appear in court, and the children themselves had to be brought before the Bench. All of this flowed from a petition that concealed the MOU and the Telangana HC order, both of which went to the root of the claim that the children were in illegal custody.
The Bench also declined to accept the petitioner's in-court apology at the final stage. The court held it was not a case where the apology deserved acceptance.
Order and Costs
The Division Bench dismissed W.P. No. 18034 of 2026 and imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the petitioner, Smt. Vasabhaktula Swathi. The costs are to be deposited with the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court within three weeks from 28 July 2026.
On deposit, the amount is to be invested in Fixed Deposit Receipts in any Nationalised Bank in the names of the two children individually, in equal amounts of ₹25,000 each, payable to them on attaining the age of majority respectively.
All miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the matter were directed to stand closed.