ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: “……to issue a Writ, one in the nature of Writ of ‘Hebeas Corpus’ or any other appropriate Wirt, Direction or Order or Command to the respondent Nos.2 to 7 for presenting my mother Smt.Kondapaneni Revathi before the Hon’ble Court and pass such other order or orders……..” 2. Heard Chavali Yaduraju, learned counsel for the Writ Petition and Sri Akula Sri Krishna Sai Bhargav, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8. 3. The case of the petitioner is that: (i) The Writ Petitioner is the daughter of late Kondapaneni Koteswara Rao and Kondapaneni Revathi and she has two brothers by name Kondapaneni Seshagiri Rao-respondent No. 8 and Kondapaneni Hanumantha Rao. Her father had self-acquired properties and he used to run the Rice Mill for feeding the family; that the respondent No. 8 expended her father’s monies lavishly for his vices and in such a situation her father separated with him; that her father registered ½ share to her and ½ share to her mother Revathi in the Rice Mill and other properties; that the respondent No. 8 used to quarrel with her father and forcibly necked out him from the said Rice Mill; that her father gave complaint against him vide Cr.No. 119 of 2016 and filed Civil Suit No. 227 of 2017 before Tenali Court; that her father died on 12.01.2020 and subsequently her 2nd brother Hanumantha Rao also died; that being local villager, she looked after her parents since long time; that after death of her father, her mother stayed along with her. (ii) On 19.11.2020, the respondent No. 8 and others forcibly took her mother along with them in an auto and since then all of them have confined her in a room against her will and wish, and detained her unlawfully. When she went to return with her mother to her house, the respondent No. 8 and his men necked her out. On that she filed an application before respondent No. 2 for enquiry. As per the orders of 2nd respondent, the CDPO (Child Development Project Officer) made some enquires and thereafter colluded with respondent No. 8 and even without visiting her mother nor enquired her submitted a false report. Hence, she prays to direct the respondents for production of her mother. 4. As per the orders of 2nd respondent, the CDPO (Child Development Project Officer) made some enquires and thereafter colluded with respondent No. 8 and even without visiting her mother nor enquired her submitted a false report. Hence, she prays to direct the respondents for production of her mother. 4. When this petition was posted for admission, learned Additional Advocate General has taken notice for the respondents No. 1 to 7 and at the instance of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General, this Court ordered notice to respondent No. 8, who in-turn appeared before this Court through Sri Akula Sri Krishna Sai Bhargav, learned counsel for the 8th respondent. 5. Even prior to 27.03.2023, the respondent No. 8 filed counter along with documents by stating that the mother of respondent No. 8 Smt.K.Revathi is willingly and voluntarily residing with him. It is stated that Smt.K.Revathi due to her old age and other ailments, is unable to move from bed. The learned Government Pleader has produced the photographs to show that the respondent officials visited the house of respondent No. 8 and met Smt.K.Revathi. She filed some photographs in that context. The said statement was vehemently opposed. At that stage, on 27.03.2023, in order to give a quietus to the issue and also to form an opinion in the matter, this Court came to the conclusion to appoint an officer of this Court to record the statement of Smt.K.Revathi. 6. By virtue of the orders, dated 27.03.2023, Sri Bandi Srihari, learned counsel, visited the house of respondent No. 8 on 05.04.2023 and before to that date he has issued notice to both the parties by fixing the date and time of execution of warrant of commission. The learned Advocate Commissioner in the presence of both parties i.e., Writ Petitioner and Respondent No. 8 besides respondent Nos.3, 4 and 7 and in their presence, has executed the warrant of commission and obtained the signatures of both parties in the writ petition and officials, who present all through execution of the commission. 7. The respondent No. 8 in his counter denied all the allegations made by the writ petitioner in the affidavit and submitted that the relationship stated by the writ petitioner is true, but the other allegations are all false. 7. The respondent No. 8 in his counter denied all the allegations made by the writ petitioner in the affidavit and submitted that the relationship stated by the writ petitioner is true, but the other allegations are all false. He further submits that his father died on 12.01.2020, due to health issues and since then he is taking care of his mother and attended her daily routines and needs without any interference from any corner whatsoever. He further submits that his mother Smt.K.Revathi is inclined to live with him and by no stretch of imagination, the Writ Petitioner has a valid/bonafide right to curtail her freedom. 8. The respondent No. 8 further averred in his counter that the present writ petition is tainted with malaf-ides and preferred with a sole motive of harassing and wrecking, vengeance against him and his mother with ulterior motive to knock away the properties which are in his name and his mother’s name. 9. The respondent No. 8 further averred that the present Writ Petitioner already invoked the jurisdiction of District Legal Services Authority on 07.05.2022 and the case was registered as P.L.C.No. 14 of 2022 against him seeking for custody of his mother and same is pending for consideration. Thus, a lis is already pending for consideration and suppressing such material filed the present writ petition. He further averred that previously the present petitioner filed W.P.No. 17157 of 2022 seeking for same relief and she has withdrawn the same on 11.08.2022, soon after he filed his counter. As such, the Writ Petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands by abusing the process of Court. 10. Heard both sides. Perused the report of Child Development Project Officer as well the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner by name Sri Bandi Srihari. 11. No doubt, the Writ Petitioner filed reply affidavit to the counter filed by the respondent No. 8 along with certain documents containing photostat copies of F.I.R. and said to be compliant of her father Koteswararao by denying the allegation made by the respondent No. 8. 12. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that several efforts were to get the custody of the mother by the petitioner were all in vain, and the mother of the petitioner is being illegally detained under the custody of respondent No. 8. 13. 12. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that several efforts were to get the custody of the mother by the petitioner were all in vain, and the mother of the petitioner is being illegally detained under the custody of respondent No. 8. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 8 submits that though his mother is in his custody which is not illegal, thus, it cannot be said that his mother has been illegally detained. Therefore, the instant Habeas Corpus Writ Petition is not maintainable as per him. He further submits that instant matter pertains to the custody of the mother and the appropriate remedy is before the civil court and this petition is liable to be dismissed. He relied upon judgments reported in Sumanlata vs. Om Prakash Saini, 1988 SCC Online MP 73 and Abrar Khan Durrani vs. S.H.O. Visakhapatnam, (2013) 4 ALT 323 (DB). 14. Before deciding the matter on merits, it is appropriate to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Kanu Sanyal vs. District Magistrate, (1973) 2 SCC 674 . In which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: “It will be seen from this brief history of the writ of habeas corpus that it is essentially a procedural writ. It deals with the machinery of justice, not the substantive law. The object of the writ is to secure release of a person who is illegally restrained of his liberty. In which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: “It will be seen from this brief history of the writ of habeas corpus that it is essentially a procedural writ. It deals with the machinery of justice, not the substantive law. The object of the writ is to secure release of a person who is illegally restrained of his liberty. The writ is, no doubt, a command addressed to a person who is alleged to have another person unlawfully in his custody requiring him to bring the body of such person before the Court, but the production of the body of the person detained is directed in order that the circumstances of his detention may be inquired into, or to put it differently “in order that appropriate judgment be rendered on judicial enquiry into the alleged unlawful restraint.” The form of the writ employed is “We command you that you have in the King's Bench Division of our High Court of Justice - immediately after the receipt of this our writ, the body of A.B. being taken and detained under your custody - together with the day and cause of his being taken and detained - to undergo and receive all and singular such matters and things as our court shall then and there consider of concerning him in this behalf.” The italicized words show that the writ is primarily designed to give a person restrained of his liberty a speedy and effective remedy for having the legality of his detention enquired into and determined and if the detention is found to be unlawful, having himself discharged and freed from such restraint. The most characteristic element of the writ is its peremptoriness and, as pointed out by Lord Halsbury, L.C. in Cox vs. Hakes “the essential and leading theory of the whole procedure is the immediate determination of the right to the applicant's freedom” and his release, if the detention is found to be unlawful. That is the primary purpose of the writ; that is its substance and end. The production of the body of the person alleged to be wrongfully detained is ancillary to this main purpose of the writ. It is merely a means for achieving the end which is to secure the liberty of the subject illegally detained. That is the primary purpose of the writ; that is its substance and end. The production of the body of the person alleged to be wrongfully detained is ancillary to this main purpose of the writ. It is merely a means for achieving the end which is to secure the liberty of the subject illegally detained. In the early days of development of the writ, as pointed out above, the production of the body of the person alleged to be wrongfully detained was essential, because that was the only way in which the Courts of common law could assert their jurisdiction by removing parties from the control of the rival courts and thereby impairing the power of the rival courts to deal with the causes and persons before them. The common law courts could not effectively order release of the person unlawfully imprisoned by order of rival courts without securing the presence of such persons before them and taking them under custody and control. But the circumstances have changed long since and it is no longer necessary to have the body of the person alleged to be wrongfully detained before the Court in order to be able to inquire into the legality of his detention and set him free, if it is found that he is unlawfully detained. The question is whether in these circumstances it can be said that the production of the body of the person alleged to be unlawfully detained is essential in an application for a writ of habeas corpus. We do not think so. There is no reason in principle why that which was merely a step in the procedure for determining the legality of detention and securing the release of a subject unlawfully restrained should be elevated to the status of a basic or essential feature of the writ. That step was essential to the accomplishment of the purpose of the writ at one time, but it is no longer necessary. The inquiry into the legality of the detention can be made and the person illegally detained can be effectively set free without requiring him to be produced before the Court. Why then should it be necessary that the body of the person alleged to be wrongfully detained must be produced before the Court before an application for a writ of habeas corpus can be decided by the Court? Why then should it be necessary that the body of the person alleged to be wrongfully detained must be produced before the Court before an application for a writ of habeas corpus can be decided by the Court? Would it not mean blind adherence to form at the expense of substance? Why should we hold ourselves in fetters by practice which originated in England about three hundred years ago on account of certain historical circumstances which have ceased to be valid even in that country and which have certainly no relevance in ours? But we may point out that even in England it is no longer regarded as necessary to order production of the body of the person alleged to be wrongfully detained, in an application for a writ of habeas corpus.” 15. Thus, the object underlying the writ is to secure the release of a person who is illegally deprived of his liberty. The writ of habeas corpus is a command addressed to the person who is alleged to have another in unlawful custody, requiring him to produce the body of such person before the Court. On production of the person before the Court, the circumstances in which the custody of the person concerned has been detained can be inquired into by the Court and upon due inquiry into the alleged unlawful restraint pass appropriate direction as may be deemed just and proper. 16. Having considered the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court and the principles laid down in the aforestated case for grant of writ of habeas corpus, it appears that the condition precedent for instituting a petition seeking writ of habeas corpus is the person for whose release, the writ of habeas corpus is sought, must be in detention and he must be under “illegal” detention by the authorities or by any private individual. It is this illegal detention which gives the cause of action for maintaining the writ of habeas corpus. 17. This Court perused the rival contentions as well the reports of CDPO and the learned Advocate Commissioner, which indicates that the mother by name Smt.K.Revathi is not in illegal detention. The Writ Petitioner also could not prove that Smt.K.Revathi was illegally detained by her son i.e., respondent No. 8. 18. From the pleadings of the parties and after hearing the arguments, it appears that various allegations are levelled by the parties against each other. The Writ Petitioner also could not prove that Smt.K.Revathi was illegally detained by her son i.e., respondent No. 8. 18. From the pleadings of the parties and after hearing the arguments, it appears that various allegations are levelled by the parties against each other. It further appears that the parties have not made any effort for amicable settlement and are approaching the Court by filing one case after another. 19. On a careful perusal of pleadings, it is very vividly demonstrated that this Court is not a proper forum to decide this case. The writ of habeas corpus is very extraordinary jurisdiction to be exercised in such case, where the illegal confinement of the corpus is established. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 8 is unfit to take care of their mother. Except contending that he intends to take her properties, abducted her, no supportive evidence is placed in-order to accept her contention. It is also not the case of the petitioner that there is likelihood of danger of safety of her mother if she is in the custody of her son i.e., respondent No. 8. 20. In the present case, the writ petitioner alleged that the respondent No. 8 said to have abducted her mother, when in fact, Smt.K.Revathi has stated before CDPO as well learned Advocate Commissioner that she is staying with her son, i.e., respondent No. 8 willingly and voluntarily. It appears that the Writ Petitioner has taken plea of illegal confinement made by the respondent No. 8 only to get custody of her mother, when in fact the mother Smt.K.Revathi is in custody of her son. The dispute is between sister and brother, who are not the guardians of Smt.K.Revathi and that she is more than 80 years old and she can decide with whom she wants to live. Therefore, the proper remedy does not lie before this Court. This matter is of the civil nature which can be determined only by appropriate forum. 21. In view of the aforesaid, in our considered opinion, the petition has no substance, as no ground whatsoever has been made for issuance of writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, we decline to exercise the jurisdiction for issuance of writ of habeas corpus. 22. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 21. In view of the aforesaid, in our considered opinion, the petition has no substance, as no ground whatsoever has been made for issuance of writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, we decline to exercise the jurisdiction for issuance of writ of habeas corpus. 22. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, dismissal of writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from seeking any remedy available to her in law. Any observation made by this Court, while deciding this writ petition, shall not come in the way of either of the parties or of the appropriate forum in deciding any case filed. No order as to costs. 23. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.