In Re Praveen Venkateswara Pinnamaneni v. the State of Texas
This text of In Re Praveen Venkateswara Pinnamaneni v. the State of Texas (In Re Praveen Venkateswara Pinnamaneni v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Opinion issued March 24, 2026
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-01072-CV ——————————— IN RE PRAVEEN VENKATESWARA PINNAMANENI, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Praveen Venkateswara Pinnamaneni, filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus contending that he had been unlawfully confined by the trial court in
the underlying divorce proceedings between relator and real party in interest, Reva
Verma.1 On December 19, 2025, the trial court signed an order finding relator guilty
1 The underlying case is In the Matter of the Marriage of Praveen Venkateswara Pinnamaneni and Reva Verma, Cause No. 2024-58816, in the 257th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Sandra Peake presiding. of six separate acts of contempt based on his failure to pay spousal support as
required by the trial court’s November 18, 2024 Agreed Temporary Orders. In his
petition for writ of habeas corpus, relator argued that his confinement was unlawful
because the trial court’s December 19, 2025 order was void. Relator therefore
requested that this Court issue a writ of habeas corpus.
In connection with his petition for writ of habeas corpus, relator also sought
immediately temporary relief, requesting that he be “released on reasonable bond”
pending this Court’s review of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. On December
22, 2025, the Court granted relator’s request for temporary relief, ordering that he
be discharged from custody of the Harris County Sheriff’s Office on a bond in the
amount of $500.00. The Court further requested a response to relator’s petition for
writ of habeas corpus, but no party filed a response.
We conclude that relator has failed to establish that he is entitled to the relief
requested and therefore deny relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. We further
lift our December 22, 2025 order and dismiss any pending motion as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Johnson, and Dokupil.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re Praveen Venkateswara Pinnamaneni v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-praveen-venkateswara-pinnamaneni-v-the-state-of-texas-txctapp1-2026.