ANDHRA PRADESH:<\/em> The Andhra Pradesh High Court<\/a><\/strong> has dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother seeking custody of her two minor sons from their father<\/strong>, after finding that she had earlier agreed through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that the children would remain solely with the husband. The Court also imposed \u20b950,000 costs for suppression of material facts<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari <\/strong>and Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi<\/strong> was dealing with Writ Petition No. 18034 of 2026, which arose from a letter petition to the Chief Justice on June 28, 2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The mother alleged that her husband had forcibly taken their two minor sons from her custody while allegedly trying to avoid investigation in a criminal case. She sought a writ of habeas corpus<\/strong> to trace the children and restore their custody to her.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, during the proceedings, important facts from earlier litigation came before the Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband had earlier approached the Telangana High Court<\/a><\/strong> in Criminal Petition No. 9564 of 2025 seeking quashing of an FIR registered against him under Sections 85 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961<\/strong>. The Telangana High Court had quashed that FIR on September 18, 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n More importantly, the earlier proceedings recorded that the husband and wife had signed an MoU dated March 26, 2025,<\/strong> for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent. Under the MoU, they specifically agreed that custody and care of both children would remain solely with the father<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The MoU also recorded a \u20b910 lakh financial settlement<\/strong>, along with \u20b930,000 monthly maintenance for 12 months<\/strong>. During the present proceedings, the mother admitted that she had already received \u20b95 lakh from the husband<\/strong> under the settlement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The earlier court record further showed that the mother had lodged another FIR <\/a>against a different person under Sections 64(2)(m) and 318(4) BNS<\/strong>, in which the record referred to her relationship with that person. These earlier proceedings and the custody MoU had not been disclosed in her letter petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n An unusual situation also arose during the hearing. In the morning session, the mother stated that she could not understand or read English, following which the Court arranged a lady Legal Aid Counsel for her. In the afternoon session, however, she read the English MoU before the Bench<\/strong> and produced copies of the MoU and the Telangana High Court order. When asked why these documents had not been disclosed earlier, she said she did not consider them relevant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court held that where the parents had themselves agreed that the children would remain solely with the father, their stay with him could not be treated as illegal custody<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cOnce 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Bench further held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe Habeas Corpus petition is not maintainable. The petitioner has misused the process of this Court by suppression of the material facts.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The mother apologised before the Court, but the Bench refused to accept the apology and observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe are not impressed. It is not a case where an apology be accepted.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The High Court consequently dismissed the petition and directed the mother to deposit \u20b950,000 as costs<\/strong> with the Registrar (Judicial) within three weeks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court further directed that the amount should be divided equally and invested in two fixed deposits of \u20b925,000 each in the names of the two minor children<\/strong>, payable to them after they attain majority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS<\/h3>\n\n\n\n