Mogili Vijaya Laxmi vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 1430 Tel

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                       AND
              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                   WRIT APPEAL No.847 of 2022

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


       Heard        Mr.      M.Arun         Kumar,           learned   counsel

representing Mr. D.Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the

appellant and Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for

respondent No.4.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated

13.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing

W.P.No.40962 of 2022 filed by the appellant as the writ

petitioner.

3. Appellant had filed the related writ petition assailing

the legality and validity of the order dated 12.10.2022

passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and Sub-

Divisional Magistrate, Hyderabad Division, acting as the

Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents

and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (briefly, 'the 2007 Act'

hereinafter).

4. It may be mentioned that respondents No.4 and 5

had filed a complaint before the Tribunal under the 2007

Act under Section 4(1) of the 2007 Act complaining that

respondent No.4, being the mother, was subjected to

harassment and physical abuse by the appellant and her

husband on refusal of respondent No.4 in registering her

husband's property in their name. After hearing the

matter, Tribunal passed the order dated 12.10.2022

recording the following findings and issued the below

mentioned directions:

1. The petitioner Smt. Tadeshetti Vara Lakshmi W/o. (Late) Krishna Murthy admeasuring 62 Sq. Yards through Registered Sale Deed Doc. No. 2530 of 1981 and constructed the house G+2 and she is the absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of the property bearing R/o. 2-2-1167/11/C/1, Tilak Nagar, New Nallkunta, Amberpet, Mandal, Hyderabad.

2. The respondents namely 1) Smt. Mogili Vijaya Lakshmi W/o. M. Ashok (daughter) 2) Sri. M. Ashok

(son-in-law) 3) Sri. Mogili Anush S/o. M. Ashok (grandson) 4) Sri. Mogili Udia Kiran S/o. M. Ashok (grandson) should vacate the occupied portion in the premises 2-2-1167/11/C/1, Tilak Nagar, New Nallkunta, Amberpet, Mandal, Hyderabad within a period of (30) days. Moreover, there is no maintenance issue. If having any supported document/evidence in partition deed may approach the court of law, for redressal of their grievances.

3. The Petitioner desires to leave her rest of the life peacefully without any tension being created by respondents. In the interest of protection of life and property U/s.21 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007.

4. The respondents and other daughters are strictly directed to behave with the petitioner in a polite and sympathetic manner, not to create any physical and mental torture to the petitioner.

5. If any such unlawful activities are noticed, necessary action will be initiated against you under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

6. If aggrieved with the orders, the petitioner (or) respondents may file an appeal before the next appellate authority, i.e. District Collector, Hyderabad within the stipulated time.

5. Instead of filing appeal under Section 16 of the 2007

Act, appellant filed the related writ petition. Learned Single

Judge recorded the admitted fact that appellant is staying

in the subject property along with respondents No.4 and 5.

Therefore, directing to maintain status quo for a period of

fifteen days, appellant was relegated to the forum of

appellate authority. Consequently, the writ petition was

dismissed whereafter the appeal came to be filed.

6. On 23.12.2022 we had passed the following order:

Appellant is the daughter of respondent No.4. Appellant resides in the residence of respondent No.4. There appears to be a family dispute involving appellant, respondent No.4 and respondent No.5, who is the sister of the appellant and daughter of respondent No.4.

Respondent No.4 had approached the Revenue Divisional Officer functioning as the Tribunal for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens in Hyderabad District under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, against the appellant. Respondent No.3 i.e., Tribunal passed order dated 12.10.2022 directing eviction of the

appellant. Against this order, the related writ petition came to be filed, being W.P.No.40962 of 2022.

On the ground that there is a provision for appeal before the District Collector under Section 16 of the aforesaid Act, learned Single Judge declined to entertain the writ petition, but directed maintenance of status quo for a period of fifteen days to enable the appellant to avail the alternative remedy.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that as the dispute centres round family members, it would be just and appropriate if an endeavour is made for a settlement through the Court annexed Mediation Centre.

We, therefore, request both the appellant and respondents No.4 and 5 to appear before the Mediation Centre annexed to the High Court within a period of one week from today, whereafter the Mediation Centre shall nominate a competent mediator to mediate between the parties.

Copy of this order be sent to the Mediation Centre.

7. In the proceedings held on 09.03.2023 we were

informed by the learned Mediator who had submitted

report dated 27.01.2023 that despite his best efforts no

settlement could be reached between the parties.

Thereafter vide order dated 09.03.2023, it was directed

that the appeal would have to be heard on merit.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

respondent No.4 is a senior citizen but respondent No.5 is

not a senior citizen. Respondent No.5 cannot avail the

benefit of the 2007 Act. That apart, the Tribunal could not

have passed an order of eviction under the 2007 Act.

9. However, learned counsel for respondent No.4

supports the order of the learned Single Judge.

10. The 2007 Act is a special legislation enacted by the

Parliament to provide for more effective provisions for

maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens

guaranteed and recognized under the Constitution of India

and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

11. Though primary objective of the 2007 Act is to ensure

that parents and senior citizens are not deprived of

maintenance, the Tribunal constituted under the said Act

has power not only to decide maintenance but also on

issues arising out of action denying maintenance.

12. We may mention that the related application was filed

by respondents No.4 and 5 under Section 4(1) of the 2007

Act, which is an application for maintenance. Be that as it

may, Section 15 of the 2007 Act provides for constitution of

appellate tribunal by the State Government and Section 16

of the 2007 Act deals with appeals to the appellate

tribunal.

13. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on

due consideration, we are of the view that learned Single

Judge was justified in relegating the appellant to the forum

of appellate tribunal.

14. No case for interference is made out.

15. Consequently, writ appeal is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ

______________________________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 28.03.2023 vs