The High Court · 2025

the circurnstances stated in the affidav* rire: in #il::Hffi:':^:llin High cotr,t nrav be pteased to suspend the ,,p3-ation ,t *.-r.^]^l:::""'.t1" issued by *. o,n ,".r"i::::#:::]ffi":f N3r27/2o20, o^,uo io-orlrox to suspenrJ th. operation of the proceedings plln;g;rnt to tto o,r^^ -.^:".":'l''' j, i;rT:,ffi ff::: :: Jliti l" t r: x*:" _,,;;:l m; ;: counsel for ther l,Frpellant: sRt RApoLU BHASKAR Counsel forthe Respondent No.l: SRI V. MURALI MANOHIR Counsel for the Re spondent Nos.2,3 and 4: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Rr:r;oondent Nos.S and 6: SRI MAHESH RAJE Gl) FOR HOME Counsel for the Il€,-. I,ondent Nos.7 to g:__ The Court made the fbllowing: ORDER JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL TIIE TION'BLE THE ACTING 9IIEF TrrE H.N'BLE "*"' wRlT S3t'"E REN,KA YARA No. 464 of 202s JUDGME Sn RaPolu Bhaskar' NT: (P.r *e Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justtce Sujog Paul) learned counsel for the apPe[ant; Sri V-Murali Manohar' learned counsel for resPondent No'l; and Sri Mahesh Raje' learned Government Pleader for Home' for respondent Nos'S and 6'

2. With the consent' finallY heard' i I I apPeal takes excePtion to the order Passed in W.P'No'14258 of 2022 dated Single Judge 3 This intra Court by the learned lI7.02.2025.

4. The relevant facts lor adjudication of this writ appeal are that respondent No.1 (writ petitioner), who is the mother-in-lafl of the appellant, preferred an application before the Revenue Divisional Ofircer-cum-Special Tribunal' Miryalaguda' which was registered as case No'A13727 l2O2O for maintenance' The said authority, by an order dated 20 'O7 '2021' directed respondent Nos.7 to 9 to provide respondent No' 1 the ground floor portion of 2 the hous: irr:aring No.2O_ I I S three son s \,,ilre a.lso directed month lo h:r arld not to raise appellant r.rr s;uccessfully to pay 16 stay during her lif,:time and her "rr amount of F:s.S,OOO/^ per any objections in that regard. The cha.llenged the said crd<,r in No.C I / 60i, T r, 2,02 I, whichcame to be dismissed or.t LC.O9.2O2l. 5. Re spr:nl6n1 No. I liled W.P.No.t4258 Appeal ot 2C22 seeking the following ;-elie1 .-,, .,1.c r the above g*lll.:rg,.e-r$,*****rr ; I [ *','ifl filrf".i'fi?{:i,il}{,,i ilf [t#i '" ;t ,i:[:il ';,"!33?6i,;,:.,n^ 0.13'i[,0',? 'ri.';;; ;HiTIi,, ;;-;;ilI:"i?H?.:iJl-jX"*_"',1: t!: . i l,ff:l I:;i :'i, ,'T"',H;;':]-1"I" ';';;,.";'ll: ''ll1[], ff:::L,: H, r:f,.fii= i::!i,i.o3T,uB1:).X,,'l .*i i:',;:T.,", I ; Iff [.ili," s,i{* _.iI" l;4; --;: l; + l}:i orders as h H;;bkt:*:"-""d .pass such orhcr ordr r or t., deem fit and p,rop, r ir rhe circumsra," .,;ii;;'.;:1," "1".1;

6. Learned t,inr1ie, after hearing both the parlies. issued rhe following dire,:t on s { ( ) ,,,*P.*+;i:f*:$*.i1:f-'*i# :i::::x$'.lL':rm.ffi 'r.1;i"",1*t'trenderingit iJ^ .-".,.,ndent Nos.o -r'it ^ p"ti,.l:r'".1:,1""."cessiries rs :'l:'::;1;;' portion "l'-':'"":";;;"ide basic n' " ^,^^ A to y have shown gro-ulo, ',',"lir-t ""a fail,,.6 '- : i,r['ir*#$;*;;+:"jffi l]!'+i:l*:***:"'*:] and taulnts .-.:-::. these circumsf-'::: ""rv ]ina.uit .' .,dj:Y1'11":T#il"';:,ilI,,e., who is a Sentor add to the hardsnrP ^" Cirjzrert. :- ..owed and the ";.i"e r':!_"::1T"i1i,^*EJa rhp case lor arrJ '-*--,' ***fg*5e'-mfm* District by construcu.rY-:;;;. the respond ";;";;;;""'"'d-'^1,:-""^'.".:i'.',i"".tn.iespondentNos'6'to ;;'il" ;"'"""qq ryl:':"p,:il#'i",ir,"""' as directed bv the E'il;tl pay maintenan": Y::'"'^: /2r months from today' In tv th:' 1,'l: i.i;;;"i ri'ithin a pe r iod, r"r.' strinsent actron .u""t, ti'e '.'sniilii:::","J":; "r,uii oi-,i i" co"*, *" *=.fH::,';i.'"rla.. ,i..::"".'.Tr"H " ioj [: against them as and [rle a complrart\--\ 62.'io' citi"""" otl.,3l"o,,'rrL.ltsi -*""''hs . from todav'" Registry, within a Pt t;' #it-'o '',p "^1.'=%";'" 7 . karned counscl for the appellant raised two-fold submissions' Firstly' he submits tha[ against the appellate order' the appellant and her husband hled W'P'No'30913 of ZOZl' *hbh\ is pending consideration' lrarned counsel for the appellant \ submits that the learned Single Judge was apprised about the 4 pender r<:1, of the sal ftatrr.' ,r, ,. n.:: placir:g r.riance or, ao parenr" ,,,^ ^ 'the A,.r , ,, -' - oenror citir^^^ ^ _. | ,. lS SUbn writ Petition with a r *u" Paid 16 "'"n ] 1I of the litizens Act' 2ooz (hertt d that for enforcer jecfion - "rq,rrr'enance "*.rrf"""". prayer to link both the Secondly' a-rr d well,are of after referred to as' of the order of rDainterra.n,-^.-., a differe the Act a,rcr rherefor",tt in issuin g,r,,, i-prer"aTe ""t"o***n**,,]"ttt leamed .t";;;:; :: :H;:: B. ps1 c,.rrl 'ra, learned Government pleader Learned counsel for the impu gn e,:r order. the Iearned t-i rvemm ent pleader stand that ces;pite getting suflicient not file ar_v c.:rl n ter and at no court regald nl: Dendency of the the aforesaid alr rellate order. -{on ," "uppo.ted resporrdet rt No. i and common for Home both took a oPPortunity, the atr:pellant did point of time tnforme d the writ appellant,s writ petiti,rrr aga_lnst 9 parties No otlre ;_ l,oint is pressed by the learned coi.r r-rscl lor the 10 We have lrr....l-d the Iearned counsel for the partles at length { t 5

11. Admittedly' the appellant has not hled the counter affrdavit before the writ court' On a specifrc query from the Bench' learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any pleading in the writ appeal' wherein the appellant pleaded that pendency of her writ petidon was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge with a request to link the matter and it was turned d'own' Thus' we frnd no reason to entertain such oral plea' 12. It is also noteworthy that the appellant frled review petition in l.A'No'l of 2O25in W'P'No'14 258 of 2022' wrticr was dismissed appellant has not hted her review petition along with this writ appeal to show whether such a request was on 15'04'2OZS' ]tre made in the review petition for hearing both the writ petitions analo gously ' tn the absence of any material before us' we are unable to persuade ourselves with the line of argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that her writ petition challenging the appellate order was' indeed' pending and deserves analogous heanng' ) )

13. So far the ground relating to enforcement of the order of rnaintenance under Section 1l of the Act is concerned' no doubt' I l ) then: ,,.xir;rs a statt said pro,, *,,o,, ,orj of the , cou* ro * provision here takes ;;. take care 6 in the st; ::*t" b''ok' how.,"'' 'n" jurisdiction ""n" *"r;:tra()r'[irrtuy k on 16'1 , ,;r';,'::*';r t"'''. Thus' we ;;to court in o* ai"o d to the appellant - rt'spondent No l' n't srrid order could !-easron to interfere cnar'z jurisdiction' pres{ her pending tht uPPtllute order' rill remain subject ,. ,^l,rr;;;.: 'to 'i,r. who s,-1.c..,J.6 nor be tr r,;rated inrr with the r.rr.r of ,n"' However-, rib,:-tJz is res writ petiti,.r6 iLssairing needJess tr; r,- ,t:r1[16p, her writ perrrrr rr. 14. Accorc ir.;;11,. ths r observafiorrs \: order u writ appear is dismisser r-s to costs. d wit -i th e aforesaid MiscelLrn -. :us petitions pending, if any, shall stanrj closed //TRUE COPY// ",="?lrgfi8g[ft :Ifi fits"i"]",i,',t]k",,::,:::""'. 1y*lq[l:iri#f:f, IyJ":r?:,: 3: .IGP forRevenue, Hish court forthe stare crreranqana. ar Two CD rlc ci,: ; I To, 1 2 3 4 5 TJ LS HIGH COU RT DATED:0rl rcStZOzs JUDGMEI\I1. WA.No.468 cff 2025 6r;; o |tr jU llru5 11 l I

61., )HE -_= DISMISSING I'65 WRIT APPEAL WTHOUT C:OSTS D @