1 APHC010476302025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] TUESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 24219/2025 Between: 1. SRI. D.RAJENDRA PRASAD NAIDU,, S/O MUNISWAMY NAIDU, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D.NO.36/261-3- 16 (PENT HOUSE), REDDY COLONY, KADAPA, YSR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, KADAPA. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KADAPA, YSR DISTRICT. 4. DODDAPANENI SAVITRAMMA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, W/O D. MUNI SWAMY NAIDU (LATE), R/O D.NO. 36/261- 3-15 (GROUND FLOOR) REDDY COLONY, KADAPA, YSR DISTRICT. 2 5. DODDAPANENI RAMESH BABU, S/O D.MUNI SWAMY NAIDU (LATE) SOFTWARE ENGINEER, 724, AGED 44 YEARS STONEY GREEK DR BALVIN, M063021, USA, 6. DODDAPANENI RAMA KRISHNA, S/O D. MUNI SWAMY NAIDU, AGED 42 YEARS R/O MANDADI MAGNUS, MIYAPUR, (NEAR BY METRO), HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. THOMMANDURU V SARADHI 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.24219 of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in entertaining the application filed by the 4th respondent under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, ‘the Act’) and numbered the same as O.P.No.1 of 2025, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 3. The main crux of the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the 4th respondent under Section 23 of the Act in the absence of an application under Section 4 of the Act for maintenance. Without making an application under Section 4 of the Act, the 4th respondent ought not to have filed an independent application under Section 23 of the Act. Further, apart from the legal submissions, on facts also, learned counsel for the 4 petitioner has placed his reliance on the civil suit pending before the Court of I Additional District Judge, Ananthapur with regard to very same property. The said suit was filed by youngest brother of the petitioner and the same was numbered as O.S.No.87 of 2017. The said suit was filed against the petitioner and the 4th respondent-mother is also a co-defendant and one of the prayer in the suit is to cancel the gift deed made in 15.10.2009 in favour of the petitioner by the 4th respondent and as the substantial issue is pending before the Civil Court, the 3rd respondent should not take up the matter under Section 23 of the Act. Further, apart from the above all, behind back the 3rd respondent has issued notice only to the 4th respondent on 28.08.2025 to collect the evidence, which is also contrary to Section 6 of the Act. 4. As far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to maintenance of O.P. under Section 23 of the Act independently is concerned, the same has already considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and held it appropriate, hence, he has not made much stress on the said aspect. With regard to the pendency of the civil suit and also taking evidence independently without notice to the petitioner is concerned, this 5 Court also satisfied with regard to contravention of rules and also principles of natural justice. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to follow strictly the procedure contemplated under the Act, more specifically Sections 4 to 6 of the Act, while deciding O.P.No.1 of 2025 filed under Section 23 of the Act and the petitioner is also given liberty to place all the relevant material to substantiate his claim with regard to the gift deed. After considering the entire material, the 3rd respondent may decide the O.P. as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 30.12.2025 Ivd 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.24219 of 2025 Dated: 30.12.2025 Ivd