APHC010130732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO:8067 of 2025 Between: Barothu Muniyya ...Petitioner AND The State of AP and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mangena Sree Rama Rao Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Revenue GP for Social Welfare The Court made the following order: Heard Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the respondents. With the consent of both the learned counsel, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The writ petition is filed challenging the action of the 2nd respondent in not processing the application filed by the petitioner dated 06.11.2023, seeking maintenance from the unofficial respondents. 3. It is stated that the petitioner is 70 years old, after demise of his wife, the unofficial respondent, who is his son, working in State Government Department, is not taking care of the petitioner and is in possession of the property. It is contended that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered into between the petitioner and the unofficial respondent, under the said MOU, it was agreed that all the lands would be cultivated by the petitioner herein and it was agreed that an extent of Ac.0.40 cents would be given to the petitioner’s daughter. However, the unofficial respondent has started harassing the petitioner and hacked him out of the subject property, and created a forged will executed by petitioner’s wife. 4. Unable to bear the harassment, on 06.11.2023 the petitioner filed an application before the 2nd respondent under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking relief against the petitioner for grant of maintenance, it is stated that so far no orders have been passed on the application. 5. Having regard to the contentions advanced, this Court is of the considered view that, in the interests of justice, it is appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 6. It is stated that, at the time of filing the application, the concerned jurisdictional Tribunal was the 2nd respondent. However, due to reorganization there is change in jurisdiction of the Tribunals. The petitioner is therefore permitted to place the same application before the concerned jurisdictional Tribunal. On filing of the same, the jurisdictional Tribunal shall dispose of the same as directed above. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 28.03.2025 BSK 22 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO:8067 of 2025 Date: 28.03.2025 BSK