Telangana High Court
Smt. Konuganti Raghavarani, vs Smt. Konuganti Anasuya, on 1 May, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL No.468 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)
Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the appellant;
Sri V.Murali Manohar, learned counsel for respondent No.1;
and Sri Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home, for
respondent Nos.5 and 6.
2. With the consent, finally heard.
3. This intra Court appeal takes exception to the order passed
by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14258 of 2022 dated
17.02.2025.
4. The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ appeal are
that respondent No.1 (writ petitioner), who is the mother-in-law of
the appellant, preferred an application before the Revenue
Divisional Officer-cum-Special Tribunal, Miryalaguda, which was
registered as case No.A/3727/2020 for maintenance. The said
authority, by an order dated 20.07.2021, directed respondent
Nos.7 to 9 to provide respondent No.1 the ground floor portion of
the house bearing No.20-115 to stay during her lifetime and her
three sons were also directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- per
month to her and not to raise any objections in that regard. The
appellant unsuccessfully challenged the said order in Appeal
No.C1/6077/2021, which came to be dismissed on 10.09.2021.
5. Respondent No.1 filed W.P.No.14258 of 2022 seeking the
following relief:
"For the above mentioned reasons and those reasons
which may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is therefore
prays that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ
or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of
Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent
No.3 and 4 in implementing the orders passed by the
Respondent No.2 dt.16-11-2021 in C1/6077/2021 and the
action of the Respondent No.6 and 7 in demolishing the
ground floor portion of the Petitioner's house as illegal,
arbitrary, highhanded in violation of basic human rights, in
violation of the orders dated 20-07-2021 in
Lr.No.A/3727/2020 orders dt.10-09-2021 in Appeal
No.C1/6077/2021 in violation of rights guaranteed under
the provisions of Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,
2007 with a consequential prayer to direct the Respondent
No.2 and 3 to implement the orders passed by the
Respondent No.2 dt.16-11-2021 in C1/6077/2021 and
direct the Respondent No.6 and 7 to restore the ground floor
portion of H.No.20-115, Islamapur of Miryalguda Town,
Nalgonda District, Telangana and pass such other order or
orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case."
6. Learned Single, after hearing both the parties, issued the
following directions:
"6. This writ petition has been pending since 2022. Till
date, the unofficial respondents neither complied with the
orders passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 nor filed
counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. They have
successfully dragged the matter all these years. The action of
the respondent Nos.6 and 7 in demolishing the toilets in the
ground floor portion of the petitioner's house rendering it
uninhabitable and failing to provide basic necessities is
highly deplorable. The respondent Nos.6 to 9 have shown
lack of humanity by neglecting the petitioner in her old age
and failing to provide her medical and basic needs. Under
these circumstances, granting further time for filing counter
affidavit or adjourning the case for any reason would only
add to the hardship faced by the petitioner, who is a Senior
Citizen.
7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the
respondent Nos.3 and 4 are directed to forthwith implement
the orders dated 16.11.2021 passed in Lr.No.C1/6077/2021
by the respondent No.2 and the Respondent No.6 to 9 are
directed to restore the ground floor portion of House No.20-
115, situated at Islamapur, Mirayalguda Town, Nalgonda
District by constructing washroom and make it habitable for
the petitioner and if necessary, the respondent No.5 shall
provide necessary police protection. The respondent Nos.6 to
9 shall pay maintenance to the petitioner as directed by the
Tribunal within a period of three (3) months from today. In
the event, the respondent Nos.6 to 9 fail to comply the orders
of this Court, the respondent No.3 shall take stringent action
against them as permissible under the provisions of the
Senior Citizens Act and file a compliance report in the
Registry, within a period of three(3) months from today."
7. Learned counsel for the appellant raised two-fold
submissions. Firstly, he submits that against the appellate order,
the appellant and her husband filed W.P.No.30913 of 2021, which
is pending consideration. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the learned Single Judge was apprised about the
pendency of the said writ petition with a prayer to link both the
matters, but no heed was paid to such a request. Secondly, by
placing reliance on Section 11 of the Maintenance and Welfare of
Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as,
"the Act"), it is submitted that for enforcement of the order of
maintenance, a different statutory mechanism is prescribed under
the Act and therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified
in issuing the impugned order.
8. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home supported
the impugned order. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 and
the learned Government Pleader for Home both took a common
stand that despite getting sufficient opportunity, the appellant did
not file any counter and at no point of time informed the writ
court regarding pendency of the appellant's writ petition against
the aforesaid appellate order.
9. No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the
parties.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
11. Admittedly, the appellant has not filed the counter affidavit
before the writ court. On a specific 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 petition was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge
with a request to link the matter and it was turned down. Thus,
we find no reason to entertain such oral plea.
12. It is also noteworthy that the appellant filed review petition
in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.14258 of 2022, which was dismissed
on 15.04.2025. The appellant has not filed her review petition
along with this writ appeal to show whether such a request was
made in the review petition for hearing both the writ petitions
analogously. In 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 hearing.
13. So far the ground relating to enforcement of the order of
maintenance under Section 11 of the Act is concerned, no doubt,
there exists a statutory provision in the statute book, however, the
said provision nowhere takes away the extraordinary jurisdiction
of the writ court to take care of the grievance of respondent No.1,
who succeeded way back on 16.11.2021, and the said order could
not be translated into reality. Thus, we find no reason to interfere
with the order of the writ court in our discretionary jurisdiction.
However, liberty is reserved to the appellant to press her pending
writ petition assailing the appellate order. The appellate order,
needless to mention, will remain subject to the final outcome of
her writ petition.
14. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid
observations. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
__________________________
RENUKA YARA, J
01.05.2025
vs/sa
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)
01.05.2025
sa/vs
