Muthyala Satyavasu v. '1 . The State of Telangana

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir; rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass orders to suspend the impugned order dated. 30-06-:l t25, consequential corrigendurn order dated. 06-11-2025 in Senior Citizen Case I o. 07/2024, Rc.No. B,1144512025 of the 3rd Respondent, pending disposal of the n .it petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. MADAN MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: SRI L.RAVINDER, lrr iP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.5: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No.6 to 8: - - - - The Court made the following: ORDER i I I i i TI{E HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E'V'\rENUGOPAL WRIT PEf,ITION No.34734 o f20.25 ORI)ER: Aggrieved by the action of respondent No'3 in entertaining Senior citizen case No.o7l2o24, Rc.No .Bl1445l2o24 under Section 23 of the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act' 2OO7 (for short 'the Act, 2OO7) against the petitioner herein and passing order dated 3o.o6.2-o2s and corrigendum order dated 06.11.2025, directing the petitioner to allow respondent No'S into the petitioner's property and vacate from the petitioner's property and further directing the petitioner to pay Rs'6'0OO/- per month from July' 2025 A consequential PraYer ts till date, the present writ petition is filed' sought to set aside the said orders' 2. Heard Mr' S'Madan Mohan Rao' iearned counsel for the petitioner and Mr' L'Ravinder' learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos'1 to 4' J trarned counsel for the pettttoner contended that the Petitioner is the biological child of unofhcial respondent Nos'6 and 7' but was given in adoption under an adoption deed executed before the Sub- Registrar, Bhadrachalam' on 16'05'1995 The said document records that the adoption took place in 1988 and was formalized through the deed, evidencing that the petitioner was given in adoption at the age -of 2 \+.,- -- 1o years as per Hindu religious rites. This adoptior.r < eed has not been ..i disputed by arry of the unoflicial respondents.

4. It is further submitted that the petitioner is t-r : absoiute owner of the house property bearing H.No. 13-3-147/2 (Ci ), Bhupathi Rao Colony, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, while unofficial respondent No.8 resides separely in H.No. I \-3_ l4T /1. Both premises are independent a,d have separate entranc :s and exists. It is further submitted that upon the complaint f l :d by unofficia-l respondent Nos.6 and 7 under Section 23 of th: Act, 20O7, the Revenue Divisional officer, Bhadracha-lam, passed the order dated

30.06.2025, the relevant portion of which reads as trrr ler: "After heaing both porties and considering their finan.: status of the petitioner- 1 (pensioner - Retired Couemment Tet, her) & thl Gouemment Dmployees ore Gouentment Employees, as \e f.nancial position of petitioner is good, there is no need_ to proutde c ry fnoncial aid to the petitioner. Either of the respondents can allotu into the premi:t s oJ house beaing Nt13-3-j47/ I to the petitioners, d.ue to t C Lge rhe petitioners shifi their residence from up_stairs to grounrl 1 cor ind. ttte respondents should shifi from ground floor to up_stairs Ji tm the date o/ issue of this order. The petitioners should not sold or gift the house to t, y one, Lhe house can be inheited to the legal_hetrs onlg after l:ttth oJ the petitioners. In addition to the aboue, the respond.ents should ors.t bare the medical expen-ses of the petitioners utheneuer theg t r ) not in a position to pay the bills. Ther:for:, both the parties haue to agree and obeg the ar brs issued. bg the Tibunal under the Maintenance and" Wefare o.f I zrents and. Senior Citi_zens Act 20O7.,' 5 It is further submitted that unofficial respond,: rt Nos.6 and 7 thereafter li1ed an application for enforcement of he said order 3 Pursuant thereto, the Sub-Collector, Bhadrachalarn, modified the earlier order through proceedings in Rc.No.B/ t44S/2025, dated

06.11.2025, the operative portion of which reads as under: " Earlier T'ribunal Ord.e r : "In addition to the aboue, the respondents should olso bear the medical expenses of th.e petitioners u.theneuer they are not in a position to pag the bills." ModtJied DirectLons: a) The respondents 1 & 2 are directed to paA a sum of t6,OO0 (Rupees Six Thousand onlg) each per month from tle date of issue of the Tibunal order i.e. 30.06.2025, to th,e account of either of the petitioners (father or mother) through ang digital paAment mode (UPI/ Net Banking) on or before tlLe Sth of euery month" utithout Jail, b) Proof of such monthly transfer shall be e-mailed to subcollector. [email protected] for ueification c) TLe respondents shall olso pay th,e anrears immediatelg @6,000 each per month from JuIg 2025 till date. "

6. It is further submitted that once the petitioner was given in adoption, he is no longer legally bound to maintain the biological parents under the Act, 2OO7, and the impugned corrigendum order creates the possibility of interference with the petitioner's independent property, thereby affecting vested rights, leading to the hling of this writ petition. t I 7 . l,earned Assistant Government Pieader for Revenue contended that the petitioner ought to have approached respondent No.3 seeking an opportunity of hearing, and that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, being a party (respondent No.6) in W.P.No.25TZ9 of 2O2S 4 f-rled by unofficial respondent No.8 challenging pa1 s of the very same order. It is submitted that the issues in both writ 1 etitions arise from a common order and cannot be adjudicated separrr .ely, and that both matters require a comprehensive determination by he Tribunal under the Act, 2007.

8. This Court, having heard learned counsel fo- the petitioner and learned Assistalt Government Pleader for Revr: rue, and without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerrt ; of the case, and keeping in view that the writ petition filed by un rflicial respondent No.8 has already been relegated to the Tribunal for I :esh consideration, deems it appropriate to relegate the present rr atter also to the Tribunal consolidated under the Act, 2OO7. The !': ibunal shall issue notices to all concerned, including all unofficia_l rr spondents herein, alford sufficient opportunity of hearing, and pass tppropriate orders strictly in accordance with law within the time prr scribed under the Act, 2OO7 and, the Rules framed there unde: Pending such consideration, and till orders are passed by the Trilt rnal, all parties to this writ petition shall maintain status quo obtainine as on today.

9. With the above observations, this writ petiti ,n is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. I 7 5 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, in this petition, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. P. PONNA KRISIINA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /'.t9- SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana-500022

2. The Dis#ict Collector and District Magistrate, Bhadradri-Kothag_udem-50710'l 5. iii; 5r6_C;tt-ector anO presidins Offi6er, Tribunat for welfare of_p-arents and - SrinioiCiti=n, Bhadrachalam, 6hadradri-Kothagudem District-5071 1 1' +. ihJ i"nsiroir, Bnadrachalam, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District-5071 1 1 S. fh" ntti.trnt Superintendent of Police, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri- 6. ona Ct to sRt. s MADAN MoHAN RAo Advocate [oPUC]- - T.TwoCCstoGPFORREVENUE,HighCourtfortheStateotlelanganaat e. ffto-C-Cs to 'e p fbn HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Kothagudem Districtso7l 1 1 Hyderabad . [OUT] Hyderabad . [OUT]

9. Two CD Copies PMK HIGH COURT DATED:1711112025 I ORDER WP.No.34734 ot 2025 :\ ':- a,- 'i. t, .J t) \ 0I :,,; ;16 I ac :.' ,<. , ) .-/ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS o