1 APHC010190732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 9663/2025 Between: 1. PUTTA @ NEKKANTI MANJULA, W/O P.V.V.V. PRASAD, R/0. D. NO. 3- 113(OLD D.NO. 1-77), VADDLAMURU VILLAGE, KAPILASWARA PURAM, MANDAL DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. (EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT) ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CUM THE APPELLAT AUTHORITY FOR MAINTAINANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS AMALAPURAM,DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT, (EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CUM CHAIRMAN OF TRIBUNAL FOR MAINTAINANCE AND WELFAREA OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS, RAMACHANDRA PURAM. DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT, (EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 3. THE TAHASILDAR, KAPILESWARAPURAM MANDAL,KAPILESWARAPURAM, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT, (EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT) 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANGARA POLICE STATIION, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT, (EAST GODAVARI 2 DISTRICT). 5. SRI PUTTA RAMAKRISHNA RAO, S/O. PEDA VENKATA RAJU, R/O. D.NO. 9-34, C/O. BODAKESAVABABU, TAPESWARAM VILLAGE, MANDAPETA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased To issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned proceedings/order dated 27-3-2025 in A.P.No. 01/2024 passed by the District Collector cum Chairman Appallent Tribunal for Maintainance and welfare of parents and senior citizens Dr. B.R.Ambedkar konaseema District East Godavari District), Amalapuram, as illegal, arbitary and violative of articles 14,19,21 of the Constitution of India and also against the provisions of The Protection for Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, and consequentially set a side the impugned proceedings/order dated 27-3-2025 in A.P.No. 01/2024 and to 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 suspend the proceedings in impugned orders passed on 27-3-2025 in A.P. No. 01/2024 by the Respondent No.1/ the District Collector cum Chairman Appallent Tribunal for Maintainance and welfare of parents and senior citizens Dr. B.R.Ambedkar konaseema District( East Godavari District), Amalapuram. B.R.Ambedkar konaseema District( East Godavari District), Amalapuram. Pending disposal of the above writ petition 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 may be pleased to vacate the Interim Order dated 16.04.2025 in W.P.No. 9663 of 2025 and also dismiss the Writ Petition and pass 3 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 vacate the interim order dated; 16.04.2025 passed in W.P.No. 9663 of 2025 and dismiss the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MULLA SOHAIL SHAREEF Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE 2. GP FOR HOME 3. GP FOR REVENUE 4. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri Mulla Sohail Shareef, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned counsel Ms.Revathi Nimmagadda for respondent No.5 and learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner herein is the daughter-in-law of the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent filed an application before the 2nd respondent under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking appropriate relief. On the said application, the 2nd respondent 4 passed an order directing the petitioner to permit the 5th respondent and his wife to reside in their respective houses situated at Vadlamuru Village, Kapileshwarapuram Mandal, without causing any obstruction. Since there were two separate houses, both parties were directed to reside in one house each, and the 3rd respondent was instructed to take necessary steps to implement the said order. 3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd respondent in O.P. No.2 of 2023, the 5th respondent preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent, after hearing, passed the impugned order directing the delivery of possession of the house property, which is in the petitioner‟s possession, to the 5th respondent. Consequently, the order passed by the 2nd respondent stood affirmed. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 4. The petitioner contends that she was married to the son of the 5th respondent. After the birth of a female child, disputes arose between them, resulting in her leaving the matrimonial home and residing with her parents in Karnataka. She filed proceedings seeking maintenance for herself and her daughter, and though maintenance was ordered, her husband failed to comply. The matter was thereafter placed before the elders of the village, where a compromise was arrived at, pursuant to which the 5th respondent permitted the 5 petitioner to reside in the house bearing Door No.3-113, while the 5th respondent and his wife agreed to live in their own house bearing Door No.3-87. 5. Subsequently, however, the 5th respondent approached the Tribunal (2nd respondent) seeking eviction of the petitioner from the said premises. It is further contended that the 5th respondent‟s wife filed a Domestic Violence Case against the petitioner and also instituted a civil suit seeking her eviction. During the pendency of the said civil suit, the 5th respondent filed W.P. No.32746 of 2022, which was disposed of with a direction to the District Collector to take necessary action on the petitioner‟s representation dated 26.08.2022. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed by the senior citizen under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) is not maintainable, as the senior citizen did not execute any document in favour of the petitioner. In the absence of any such transfer, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is further contended that the petitioner, being the daughter-in-law of the 5th respondent, does not fall within the definition of “children” under Section 2(a) of the Act. The petitioner, having no other property, is residing in the subject house along with her minor daughter, and her husband has failed to provide any maintenance. Therefore, she cannot be evicted under the guise of the Senior Citizens Act. 6 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents Ms. Nimmagadda Revathi, contends that by virtue of the orders of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner herein, is allowed to reside in the RCC building, whereas the 5th respondent is forced to live in a place meant for a cattle shed. It is further contended that the 5th respondent and his wife, being senior citizens, were compelled to vacate their house and are presently residing in a rented house in a nearby village due to the threats and harassment caused by the petitioner. It is argued that the Act was enacted with the object of ensuring the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens. Therefore, the 5th respondent was well within his rights to approach the Tribunal seeking restoration of possession of his property, having been deprived of residence. If the petitioner has any matrimonial disputes, she is at liberty to pursue appropriate legal remedies; however, she cannot continue to occupy the property belonging to the senior citizens. The learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, submits that the order of the 1st respondent is in accordance with the law and relies on the following decisions of the Division Bench of the Telangana High Court and the Delhi High Court in support of her contentions. I. The decision of Division Bench of the Telangana High Court in the case of V.Shashikiran V.L.Nageshwar Rao and another Vs. V. Siva Lakshmi and others 1. 1 AIR 2019 TS 51 7 II. The decision of Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sunny Pal Vs. State of Nct of Delhi & Others 8. Considered the submissions. 9. The enactment came into effect to provide for the maintenance and welfare of senior citizens. In the facts of the case, the petitioner occupied the premises belonging to the senior citizens. It is the case of the senior citizen that there has been a partition between them and their son, the petitioner‟s husband, and they have been residing separately from his son‟s family. It is their further case that the petitioner, who was living in Karnataka, came to the subject property and evicted the 5th respondent and his wife from the property, which is their residential home. It appears from the record that there are marital disputes between the petitioner and her husband. If the petitioner has any disputes with her husband, she should resolve them separately. However, she cannot forcefully evict her in-laws, who are senior citizens, from their residential home. That is where the provisions of the Act would come into play. 10. With regard to the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent under the provisions of the Act, particularly Sec.23 of the Act, to order the eviction of a person in possession of the property, who came into possession rightfully or illegally. At that juncture, the learned counsel for the respondents, Ms. Nimmagadda Revathi, had placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of the Telangana High Court in the case of V.Shashikiran V.L.Nageshwar Rao 8 and another Vs. V. Siva Lakshmi and others, referred supra and vehemently argued that the senior citizens in the present case were forcefully evicted from the subject property after sustaining bodily injuries. She thus argued that the very object of the Act is to ensure protection, welfare and maintenance of the Senior Citizens; therefore, it cannot be said that the appellate authority or the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders in furtherance of giving effect to the provisions of the enactment. 11. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in its latest judgment in the case of Kamalakant Misra Vs. Additional Collector and others,2 the Hon‟ble Apex court observed that: “7. The framework of the Act clearly notes that the law was enacted to address the plight of older persons, for their care and protection. Being a welfare legislation, its provisions must be construed liberally so as to advance its beneficent purpose. This Court on several occasions has observed that the Tribunal is well within its powers to order eviction of a child or a relative from the property of a senior citizen, when there is a breach of the obligation to maintain the senior citizen.2 In the present case, despite being financially stable, the respondent has acted in breach of his statutory obligations in not allowing the appellant to reside in the properties owned by him, thereby frustrating the very object of the Act. High Court fell in error in allowing the writ petition on a completely untenable ground.” 2 2025 SCC Online SC 2077 9 12. Having regard to the above and in the light of the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, this Court does not find any infirmity from the impugned order. 13. Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:09.10.2025 MVK 10 710 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO:9663 of 2025 Date:09.10.2025 MVK