Andhra Pradesh High Court fines mother Rs 50,000 for ‘suppressing’ prior custody pact

“The Habeas Corpus petition is not maintainable. The petitioner has misused the process of this Court by suppression of the material facts. The entire machinery was set in motion on her representation…Once it was agreed mutually between the petitioner and the respondent number 5 (father) 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 father,” the court said on July 28.

The case arose from the mother’s representation on June 28, in which she alleged that her husband had fled while taking the children from her custody and that their whereabouts were unknown. She sought directions to the authorities to trace and produce the children before the court.

Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi said the children were not in illegal custody as the parents had agreed they would remain with their father. (Image enhanced using AI)

Earlier MoU, custody to father

The state informed the court about a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated March 26, 2025, entered into between the couple. It recorded their agreement to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent and provided for a financial settlement of Rs 10 lakh, besides Rs 30,000 per month for 12 months from June 2025 to May 2026. The MoU stated that the “custody and care” of the children would remain solely with the husband and the wife would have no right to claim custody of the children.

The settlement had also been mentioned in a Telangana High Court case related to the matter. In its September 18, 2025 order, the court referred to the MoU and quashed proceedings in an FIR against the husband and another accused.

On July 23, the court ordered the authorities to produce the children from whoever had custody, and made the husband a respondent. It also added the Telangana High Court order and March 26, 2025 MoU to the case.

On July 28, the husband, his mother and both children appeared in court. The mother said she knew Telugu and could not understand English. The court arranged legal aid and allowed her to meet the children.

Later, with a legal aid lawyer present, she read the MoU in English. Asked why she had not disclosed the MoU and the September 18, 2025 Telangana High Court order, she said she did not consider them relevant.

Habeas corpus plea not maintainable

The court said the couple had already agreed that the children would remain in their father’s custody and, therefore, their custody with him could not be treated as illegal.

The court also noted that the mother said she had already received Rs 5 lakh from her husband under the settlement. It then held that the representation had been made without disclosing the settlement, the MoU and the September 18, 2025 Telangana High Court order.

The court dismissed the petition and imposed Rs 50,000 costs, directing the mother to deposit the amount with the registrar (Judicial) within three weeks. The amount is to be invested in fixed deposits in a nationalised bank in the names of the children, with Rs 25,000 for each, payable when they attain majority.

The mother then tendered an apology, but the bench refused to accept it. “We are not impressed. It is not a case where an apology can be accepted. We decline to accept the apology,” the court said.