Mother accused father of forcibly taking their children—but what happened when the High Court found she had already agreed to give him custody? The AP High Court imposed ₹50,000 costs after discovering a crucial settlement she had not disclosed.

AMARAVATI: The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a mother's habeas corpus petition seeking custody of her two minor sons after finding that she had suppressed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) under which she had mutually agreed that custody and care of the children would remain solely with their father.

A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi held that the children could not be treated as being in the father's illegal custody when the parents themselves had earlier agreed that he would have sole custody. The Court imposed ₹50,000 in costs on the mother for suppressing material facts and misusing the Court's process.

The case arose from a letter dated June 28, 2026, sent to the Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. She claimed that her husband, had forcibly removed their two minor sons from her custody while allegedly trying to evade a criminal investigation. She requested the Court to trace the children, produce them before the Court and restore their custody to her.

The Court treated the letter as a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, during the proceedings, the State brought an important earlier settlement to the Court's notice.

The Court was informed that the husband and wife had entered into an MOU dated March 26, 2025 to settle their matrimonial disputes. Under the settlement, the husband agreed to pay the wife ₹10 lakh as full and final settlement, in addition to ₹30,000 per month for 12 months. More importantly, the parties expressly agreed that the husband would retain sole custody and care of their two children.

The custody clause stated:

“Child Custody: The parties mutually agree that the custody and care of the children born out of their marriage, aged 11 years and aged 8 years, shall remain solely with the Husband.”

The MOU further recorded that the wife would have no right to claim custody or possession of the children and would not initiate or pursue specified criminal, domestic violence or maintenance proceedings against the husband or his family.

The settlement had also surfaced in earlier proceedings before the Telangana High Court. The husband and another accused had approached that Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking quashing of FIR No.175 of 2025 involving allegations under Sections 85 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The Telangana High Court had quashed those proceedings on September 18, 2025, after considering the settlement and other facts on record. In those proceedings, notice to the wife was returned “unclaimed” and treated as duly served.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court initially noted that neither the MOU nor the Telangana High Court judgment had been disclosed in the mother's representation. The Court therefore directed that the husband be impleaded and ordered production of the children.

When the matter came up, the mother initially told the Court that she did not understand English and knew Telugu. The Court arranged a Legal Aid Counsel, Smt. Santhi Sree Vallabhaneni, to assist her.

However, when the case was taken up after lunch, her counsel informed the Court that the mother knew English. The Court recorded that she had herself provided copies of the MoU and Telangana High Court order to her counsel and read the MoU fluently in English before the Bench.

When asked why she had not disclosed the MoU and the earlier High Court order in her representation, she said she did not consider them relevant.

The High Court then held that once custody had been mutually agreed to remain solely with the father, his possession of the children could not be characterised as illegal 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 Court also noted that a financial settlement had taken place and that the mother admitted having already received ₹5 lakh from her husband.

The Bench found that she had made her representation without disclosing the settlement, MoU, and the Telangana High Court order. Because of that representation, the judicial machinery was set in motion, and the father, grandmother, and both children were required to appear before the Court.

The Court held:

“The Habeas Corpus petition is not maintainable. The petitioner has misused the process of this Court by suppression of the material facts.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and imposed ₹50,000 as costs on the mother. The Court directed her to deposit the amount with the Registrar (Judicial) within three weeks.

The Court directed that the ₹50,000 be divided equally and invested in fixed deposits of ₹25,000 each in the names of the two children, payable when they attain majority.

The mother subsequently tendered an apology, but the Bench refused to accept it, observing:

“We are not impressed. This is not a case where an apology can be accepted. We decline to accept the apology.”

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Mother Suppressed the Custody Settlement: She approached the High Court seeking the children despite an earlier MoU giving sole custody to the father.
• Father’s Custody Was Not Illegal: The Court held that custody cannot be called unlawful when the mother had herself agreed to it.
• Court Process Was Set In Motion Against The Father: The husband, his mother and both children had to appear because material facts were not disclosed.
• ₹50,000 Costs Imposed On Mother: The High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition and directed the amount to be preserved equally for the two children.
• A Father Cannot Be Dragged To Court By Hiding Earlier Settlements: The judgment shows that suppression of material facts in custody litigation can attract serious consequences.