APHC010236672024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 725/2025 Between: 1. KUDUMULA PADMA, W/O. LATE KUDUMULA KIISHNA FEMALE, AGED 46 YEARS R/O. SARABHANNAPALEM VILLAGE KOYYURU MANDAL, ALLURI SITARAMARAJU DISTRICT. 2. KUDUMULAANUSHA KRISHNA MADHURI, D/O. LATE KUDUMULA KRISHNA FEMALE, AGED 25 YEARS R/O. SARABHANNAPALEM VILLAGE KOYYURU MANDAL, ALLURI SITARAMARA,JU DISTRICT. 3. KUDUMULAPRATHYUSHA KRISHNA MADHURI, D/O. LATE KUDUMULA KRISHNA FEMALE, AGED 23 YEARS R/O. SARABHANNAPALEM VILLAGE KOYYURU MANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMARAJU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. SRI SUMIT KUMAR, DISTRICT COLLECTOR ALLURI SITHARAMARAJU DISTRICT. 2. DATHRI REDDY, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PADERU MANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMARAJU DISTRICT. 3. CH TIRUMALA RAO, TAHSILDAR KOYYURU MANDAL, ALLURI SITHARAMARAJU DISTRCIT. 2 ...CONTEMNOR(S): Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to pleased to punish the respondents herein as per the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act for their acts of contempt for willful violation of orders granted by His Lordship Justice Sri VenkateswarluNimmagadda in W.P.No.30290 of 2023, dt.24.11.2023 and pass IA 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 pleased to condone the delay of 238 days in representing the above IA Petition in C.C.No (SR) 18917 of -2024 and pass IA NO: 2 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 pleased to dispense with filing of certified copy of order in W.P.No.30290 of 2023, dt.24.11.2023 and pass IA NO: 3 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 pleased to discharge Respondent No.1 from the array of respondents in Contempt Case No.725 of 2025 and close the Contempt Case against Respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. Y V ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. K M KRISHNA REDDY 2. THANDAVA YOGESH The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 725/2025 ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the Order dated 24.11.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.30290 of 2023. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, this Court passed an Order in W.P.No.30290 of 2023, dated 24.11.2023, directing the 4th respondent to consider the claim of the petitioners with reference to G.O.Ms.No.145, dated 25.04.2015 and also the Judgment dated 05.01.2023 in W.P.No.646 of 2022, within a period of six (06) weeks. 3. It is further submitted that this Court had specifically directed the 4th respondent to consider the petitioners’ request for issuance of a Family Certificate, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.145, dated 25.04.2025, and by duly taking into account the judgment rendered by this Court in “Kollu (Rajana) Jyothi versus The state of Andhra Pradesh and 4 others” (W.P.No.646 of 2022, dated 05.01.2023). Upon receipt of the said Order passed by this Court, the 4th respondent issued a Family Certificate in favour of the petitioners, recognizing them as family members. However, the certificate also includes Smt. Kudumula Dhanalaxmi, 4 described as the second wife, which is contrary to law and the procedure laid down under G.O.Ms.No.145, dated 25.04.2015. 4. The learned counsel further submits that, as long as the marriage with the 1st petitioner subsists, any subsequent marriage with a third party (the 2nd wife) cannot be considered as valid, and she cannot be recognized as a family member of the deceased husband of the 1st petitioner. The said action of the 4th respondent is contrary to the procedure contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.145, dated 25.04.2015. By deviating from the terms of the said G.O. and failing to adhere to the Order passed by this Court dated 24.11.2023, the 4th respondent has acted in disobedience and is thus liable for punishment under Sections 9 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the 1st respondent has filed counter affidavit along with I.A.No.3 of 2025, seeking to discharge him from the present Contempt Case, wherein, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “5. It is further submitted that in pursuance to the orders dated 24-11-2023 in W.P.No.30290 of 2023 passed by the Hon'ble High Court, the 3rd respondent has issued seven days notice to the general public on the claim of the petitioner herein as required under para-3(vi) of the G.O.Ms.No. 145,dt.25.04.2015 and in reply there of Smt.Kudumula Dhana Laxmi filed objection on the claim of the petitioners. After due enquiry, the 3rd respondent has issued Family Member Certificate to the petitioners including Kudumula Dhanalaxmi /2nd wife of the deceased and her son, in total five legal heirs vide 5 FMC.No.231227032696, dt.25-01-2024, since Kudumula Dhana Laxmi was declared to be legally wedded wife of the deceased by an order dated 23-02-2017 of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Arakuvalley in MC.No.1/2015 which was confirmed in appeal and by virtue of which she got maintenance for herself and her son. 6. 6. It is further submitted that Smt. Kudumula Dhanalaxmi was declared as the legally wedded wife of the deceased by the learned Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Arakuvalley, in MC No.1/2015 dated 23.02.2017. The said Order was also confirmed in an Appeal, pursuant to which Smt. Kudumula Dhanalaxmi has been receiving maintenance for herself and for her son. Consequently, Smt. Kudumula Dhanalaxmi, the second wife, was included in the list of family members of the deceased, Sri Kudumula Krishna. 7. The counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent reiterates that, in light of the Order passed by the Court below, although Smt. Kudumula Dhanalaxmi is a family member as the second wife, the marriage of the deceased was declared valid. Therefore, she is rightly treated as one of the family members of the deceased. Consequently, there is neither any violation nor disobedience on the part of the respondents in issuing the Family Certificate dated 25.01.2024. 8. It is further observed that the Order of this Court has been duly complied with, taking into account the rights and entitlements of the deceased’s family members as well as the Order passed by the Court below. Therefore, the present Contempt Case is liable to be dismissed. 6 9. Considering the submissions of both learned counsel and the facts and circumstances stated above, it is evident that the Order passed by this Court dated 24.11.2023 was duly complied with by the 4th respondent by issuance of the Family Certificate to the petitioners on 25.01.2024. The relevant portion of the Order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 30290 of 2023, dated 24.11.2023 is extracted hereunder: “5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue and on perusal of the material placed on record, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider the claim of the petitioners in terms of the G.O.Ms.No. 145, dated 25.04.2015 and also the judgment dated 05.01.2023 in W.P No.646 of 2022 within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.” 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.” 10. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Smt. Kudumula Dhanalaxmi, the alleged second wife, cannot be declared or included as a family member of the deceased, Sri Kudumula Krishna is untenable and cannot be sustained in view of the Order passed by this Court dated 24.11.2023, as well as the Order passed by the Court below, as referred to above. Furthermore, the petitioners are at liberty to pursue their appropriate legal remedies against the Order passed by the Court below, as indicated in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent as stated supra. 7 11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to close the Contempt Case, since the Order of this Court, dated 24.11.2023 has been complied with by the 4th respondent in strict sense, without there being deviation. 12. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed with liberty. No order as to costs.[ Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Contempt Case shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 06.08.2025 SSCCHH 8 238 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Contempt Case No.725 of 2025 06.08.2025 SSCCHH 9