Telangana High Court: Wife Not to Resume her Cohabitation with her Husband as She happens to be a Major

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

In Sareddy Ashok Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others, on 2nd July 2020, Telangana HC directs to restore the custody of the detenue wife to her father. The Court also allows her not to resume the cohabitation with the Petitioner, as she happens to be a major.

Brief Facts of the Case

The Petitioner enters into marriage with the detenue on 17.06.2020 at Temple. Later, the detenue had health issues. She went to her paternal house at Bhadrachalam with her will. Subsequently, she was denied to resume her cohabitation with the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed a writ petition to continue the cohabitation.

Admission of the Detenue to the Court

The Station House Officer produced Ms Yadamakanti Poojitha Reddy, the detenue, before the Court. Hon’ble Mr Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy spoke to the detenue in her mother tongue. She informs the Court that she was born on 17.06.2001. Therefore, she is a 19-year-old young lady. According to her, the Petitioner had forced her to enter into marriage on 17.06.2020 at the Temple. Since she is having certain health issues, out of her own free volition, she went to her parental house at Bhadrachalam. Later, she went to Hyderabad to address her medical issues. Most importantly, she had no desire to resume her cohabitation with the Petitioner.

Contention of the Petitioner

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits photographs of the marriage. In the photographs, the detenue is smiling. It reveals that it is not forced marriage, but is a voluntary one. Therefore, he challenged the statement made by the detenue.

Observation of the Court

At present, the Court is concerned only with the legality or illegality of the custody of the detenue with Respondent No. 4, her father. Since the detenue happens to be a major, she also expressed her desire to go back to her parental place. She had no desire to resume cohabitation with the Petitioner.

Decision of the Court

The Court directs the Respondent No.3 to restore the custody of the detenue to her father. Therefore, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -