AP High Court Fines Mother ₹50,000 For Suppressing Grant Of Custody To Father Pursuant To Mutual Settlement
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a habeas corpus petition seeking custody of minor children is not maintainable where the children are in the custody of their father pursuant to a mutually agreed settlement between the parents.
A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi dismissed with costs the mother's petition seeking production and restoration of custody of her two minor children. The Court found that the parents had agreed under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that the children would remain in the father's custody.
The Court observed:
“Once it was agreed mutually between the petitioner and the R5 that the custody of the children shall remain solely with the husband, the children cannot be said to be in any illegal custody of the R5-father.
The representation was made without disclosing the aforesaid settlement; Memorandum of Understanding and the order dated 18.09.2025 passed in Crl.P.No.9564 of 2025 by the High Court for the State of Telangana, in which the Memorandum of Understanding was made as part of the order. The Habeas Corpus petition is not maintainable. The petitioner has misused the process of this Court by suppression of the material facts.”
The petitioner had approached the High Court by way of a habeas corpus petition seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution.
She alleged that her husband had forcibly removed their two minor children from her care and custody and that their whereabouts were unknown. She sought directions to trace and produce the children before the Court and restore their custody to her as their mother and natural guardian.
The State informed the High Court about a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) entered into between the petitioner and her husband to resolve their matrimonial disputes. Under the settlement, the husband agreed to a financial settlement, while “the custody and care of the children” were to remain solely with him.
The Court noted that the same MoU had also been referred to in an earlier order of the Telangana High Court in criminal proceedings against the petitioner's husband and another accused. In those proceedings, the Telangana High Court had quashed the criminal case against them after taking the settlement between the parties into account.
The present petitioner had been impleaded as a respondent in those proceedings. Although notice was issued to her, it was returned with the endorsement “unclaimed” and was consequently treated as duly served.
The Court further noted that, although the petitioner was provided Legal Aid Counsel after stating that she did not understand English, her counsel stated that she knew English. The petitioner had herself provided counsel with the MoU and the Telangana High Court order, and also read the MoU fluently in English before the Court. When asked why these documents were not disclosed in her earlier representation, she stated that she did not consider them relevant.
The Court observed that the petitioner had set the Court's machinery in motion without disclosing the material facts, resulting in the appearance of her husband, mother-in-law and two children before it.
Holding that the petition was not maintainable and involved suppression of material facts, the Bench dismissed it and imposed costs of Rs. 50,000/- on the mother.
The amount was directed to be invested in fixed deposits in the names of the two children, with Rs. 25,000/- each payable upon attaining majority. The Court also declined to accept her apology.
Case Title: In Re v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case No.: W.P. No. 18034 of 2026
Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt. Santhi Sree Vallabhaneni
Counsel for Respondent(s): Sri J. Krishna Praneeth, AGP