High Court · 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) [ 3168 I MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITIo N NO: 22864 OF 2025 Between: vanama Dharma Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged about63 years, occ: Private clerk, R/o. Chennuru Village, Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District' ...PETITIONER AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Women and Child ,nO fimiiy Welfare bepartm6nt, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana

2. The Diskict Collector, Khammam 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kalluru, Khammam District 4. The Tahsildar, Tallada Mandal, Khammam District 5. The Revenue Divisional officer/special Tribunal for Maintenance of parents and Senior Citizens at Kalluru, Khammam District

6. Vanama Jaganmohan Rao, S/o- Venkateswarlu., Aged about 51-y-ears' Occ: Business, R7o Mittapalli Village, Thallada Mandal, Khammam llrstnct

7. Vanama lvlahalaxmi, Wo. Venkateswarlu (Late) Aged qbout 75 years' Occ Business, R/o. Mittapalli (V), Tallada Mandal, Khammam Drstrrct' ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the order passed by the special Tribunal for Maintenance of parents and senior citizens at Kalluru, (Revenue Divisional officer)KhammamDistrictinSeniorCitizencaseNo.Blgl2l2o24daled 30.06.3035 as illegal, Arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, violation I r of provision of maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007, and violation of Article 14, 19, 21 and 3004 of Construction of lndia and consequently set aside the order passed by the 5th Respondent Special Tribunal for Maintenance of parents and Senior Citizens at Kalluru, (Revenue Divisional Officer) Khammam District in Senior Citizen case No. B191212024 dated

30.06.2025. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order passed by the 5th Respondent, Special Tribunal for Maintenance of parents and Senior Citizens at Kalluru, (Revenue Divisional Officer) Khammam District in Senior Citizen case No. 8.191212024 dated

30.06.2025 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KADARU PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE Counsel for the Respondents No.2 to 5: SRI L. RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7: - The Court made the following: ORDER a I THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE K' LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No. 22864 of2025 ORAL ORDER: HeardMr.KadaruPrabhakarRao'leamedcounselfor the Petltloner and Mr.L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5

2. Petitioner and respondent No'6 are sons of respondent No.7-SeniorCitizen.ShehasfiledapetitionunderSection4 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, the Act, 2007,) seeking maintenance against the petitioner and respondent No'6' Vide order dated 30.06.2025, respondent No'3 has passed order directing the petitioner and respondent No'6 to pay an amount of Rs'5'0001 (Rupees five thousand only) each per month to respondent No.7 towards maintenance' Chatlenging the said order' petitioner hled the present writ petition' -? a:.a- ;ri- 2

3. Mr.Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent No.3 did not receive the documents filed by the petitioner to show that respondent No.7, his mother, has sufficient means to take care of her welfare and to maintain herself. She has properties. The said aspects were not considered by respondent No.3. Therefore, on the said grounds the petitioner sought for setting aside the impugned order.

4. The impugned order is in terms of Section 4 of the Act, 200'l . lt is an appealable order. He has to prefer an appeal in terms of Section 16(l) of the Act, 2007 before the Appellate Authority.

5. There is no dispute with regard to the legal position that under the following three exceptional cilcumstances though an altemative remedy is available, the writ petition is maintainable. The said three circumstances are as follows:_ i. A breach of fundamental rights; ii. A violation ofthe principles ofnaturaljustice; 3

111. An excess of jurisdiction; or a challenge to the vires of [he starute or delegated legislation.

6. The said principle was also laid down by the three Judge Bench of the Apex Courl in Asst. Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Limitedt and also Whirlpool Corporation Y Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai2. Whereas, the present case, is not falling in any of the aforesaid three categories. Therefore, the petitioner herein cannot contend that though there is an alternative and efficacious remedy, the present writ petition is maintainable. There are several factual aspects which this Court cannot consider in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable.

7. In the light of the same, notice to respondent Nos.6 and ,! 7 is dispensed with. This Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to prefer an appeal challenging the impugned proceedings dated 30.06.2025 passed by respondent I Manu/SC/0801/2021 'irosa; s scc I I 5 -ll 4 No.3, in terms of Section 16(l) of the Act, 2007 before Appellate Authority. Liberty is also granted to the petitioners to take all the grounds and contentions, which he has raised in the present Writ petition, before the Appellatb Authority, and it is for the Appellate Authority to consider the same. on filing of such appeal, Appellate Authority shall dispose of the same in accordance with law. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand cl99ed There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR Rv" SECTbN OFFICER To, State of Tetangana, Setretariat, ttvoeradJal i"Lngrn".

1. The Principal Secretary, Wo1n.l and Child and Family Welfare Departrnent, 2. The District Collector, Khammam. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kalluru, Khammam District. 4. The Tahsildar, Tallada Mandal, Khammam District. 5 The Revenue Divisionar officer/speciar rribunar for Maintenance of parents 6. One CC to SRI KADARU PRABHAKAR RAO, Advocate tOpUCl 7. Two CCs to SRI L. RAVIN.DER AGp for Revenue, High Court for the State of B. Two CCs to Gp for Women Development & Child Welfare, High Court for the 9. Two CD Copies and Senior Citizens at Kaluru, Khim;;; b;r;;i.' State of Telangana at HyderabaA. tOUij" Telangana at Hyderabad. tOUTi - ys .qv it.. & !t * .t ]P 'It #. I t HIGH GOURT DATED:0 410812025 i HE. S irr ( 1_',) ! 21TUEM ---\ r(c i ( > 2 c)) .:_, t 7r,l ORDER WP.No.22864 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ? A- ( 1-) t& il! &,# 1i & F 4 s I t I l t iI ( t It l t I t I I It I i I tI ! * I{ f t }{ & !+ F s! {* F