Court imposes costs for misuse of judicial process after petitioner fails to disclose prior agreements and judgments.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling on July 28, 2026, dismissed a Habeas Corpus petition filed by Vasabhaktula Swathi against the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petition sought the custody of her two minor children, alleging they were unlawfully taken by her husband, Tanuku Ravi Kumar. The court found that the petitioner had suppressed critical material facts, including an existing Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and a previous judgment from the High Court of Telangana, which granted custody to the husband.
The case, which attracted considerable attention, involved Swathi's claims that her husband, against whom criminal proceedings were pending, had absconded with their children. However, the court discovered that a MoU, dated March 26, 2025, had been mutually agreed upon, assigning custody of the children to the father. The court emphasized that such agreements are binding unless proven illegal or fraudulent.
The judgment, delivered by Justices Mr. Ravi Nath Tilhari and Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi, highlighted that the petitioner not only failed to disclose the MoU but also the Telangana High Court's decision in Crl.P.No.9564 of 2025, which had quashed proceedings against her husband based on the same agreement.
In response to the petitioner's omission and the resultant judicial proceedings, the court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on Swathi for misusing the judicial process. This amount is to be deposited with the Registrar (Judicial) and invested for the benefit of the minor children until they reach adulthood. The court also declined to accept the petitioner's apology, underscoring the serious nature of the suppression of facts in judicial matters.
This case underscores the importance of full disclosure in legal proceedings and the binding nature of mutual agreements in custody disputes.
Bottom line:-
Habeas Corpus petition dismissed due to suppression of material facts, including a Memorandum of Understanding that provided child custody to the father. Costs imposed on the petitioner for misuse of the judicial process.
Statutory provision(s): Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
In Re v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (AP)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2960914
