IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY/^J TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE 11 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 4172 OF 2025 mm to Between: S S V Ravishankar Reddy, S/o S. Gang! Reddy, Aged about 47 years, R/o. 0pp. Oniero School, Dhone Town and Mandal, Nandyal District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Health Medical and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Collector and District Magistrate, (Appellate Tribunal, Maintenance and welfare of Parents and Sr Citizens) Nandyala District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dhone, Nandyal District. 4. S. Gangireddy, S/o. Chinna Anki reddy. Aged about 74 years, R/o. H.No. 4-149-100, Teachers Colony, Dhone Town and Mandal Nandyal District. 5. Smt. S. Subbalakshmamma, W/o S. Gangi Reddy. Aged about 68,Occ Housewife R/o. H.No. 4-149-100, Teachers Colony, Dhone Town and Mandal Nandyal District. 6. S. Bhageeradha Reddy, S/o S. Gangi Reddy, R/o. H.No. 4-149-100, Teachers Colony, Dhone Town and Mandal Nandyal District. 7. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Department for Women Chiidfeh Disabled and Senior Citizens DW, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a writ or direction, more particularly a writ of Certiorari may and connected with Order and the file of the Court calling for the records relating to Judgment in Appeal No. 01/2024 dated 02.02.2025 on and Welfare of Parents and Senior oy of Appellate Tribunal For Maintenance and consequently set asicie the Order dated 02.02.2025 in Appeal Citizens No 01/2024. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 that in the circumstances of the petition, the High Court may be Petition under Section 151 CPC praying stated in the affidavit filed in support pleased to stay all the proceedings in Appeal No. 01/2024 dtd. 02.02.2 before the Court of Appellate Tribunal for Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens, counsel for the Petitioner: SRI UAKSHMIKANTH REDDY DESAI Counsel for the Respondent No.t: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW for the Respondents No.2, 3: GP FOR REVENUE for the Respondent No.7: GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD Counsel Counsel WELFARE The Court made the following order: / 1 APHC010073432025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 4172/2025 f [3310] p Between: S S V Ravishankar Reddy ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY DESAI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE 2.GP FOR REVENUE 3.GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW The Court made the following: p ORDER under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the This petition is filed following relief;- “ pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly a writ of Certiorari by cailing for the records reiatmg to and connected with Order and ^gment in Apfxal No 01/2024 dated 02.02.2025 on the file of the Court of Appellate Tribunal For Maintenance and Welfare of Parents P and Senior Citizens and consequently set aside the Order dated 02.02.2025 in Appeal No. 01/2024 and pass... ”. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that Respondent No.4 being the father of the petitioner is the original owner of the subject property purchased under Registered Doc.No.766/1999, dated 12.04.1999. respondent made an unregistered sale deed on 03.04.2008 in favour of the petitioner pertaining to the first floor of the house in H.No.4-149-100 for ^ consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. The same was further wrongfully transferred to the younger brother of the petitioner/Respondent No.6 herein with the condition that he will look after the parents i.e., Respondent Nos.4 and 5 at all times and provide physical needs and basic amenities. Thereafter, Respondent No.6 colluded with Respondent Nos.4 and 5 and filed a false criminal case against the petitioner and his wife before the Dhone P.S stating that he was not taking good care of his parents, even after the property was transferred. The While the things stood thus. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 has filed 4 application for maintenance under Rule 4(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011 alleging that the house in H.No.4-149-100 belongs to Respondent No.4. On 05.05.2023, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dhone has passed an order vide Appeal No.Rc.B.01/2022, for the above mentioned application, directing the petitioner herein and Respondent No.6 herein as below;- an 3 Hi) to pay a maintenance allowance @ Rs. 10,000/- each (Rs.5,000-towarcls their father & Rs.5000- towards their mother) totaling Rs.20,000/- per month to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as per the provisions laid down under Section 9 of the Maintenance and Welfare of parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 r/w Rule 14 of the APMPSC Rules, 2011. iv) The transfer of property in respect of the house bearing No.4-149-100, Teachers colony of the Dhone Town and Mandal by way of registered document made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and the said transfer is declared void under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Aggrieved by the oroer of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Collector and District Magistrate, - Nandyal/Respondent No.2. But Respondent No.2 has upheld the decision taken by Respondent No.3 without considering the grounds raised by the ♦ petitioner in the appeal. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. Heard Mr Lakshmikanth Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Medical Health and Family Welfare appearing for the respondents. 3. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aggrieved by the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Order, Dhone, the _ petitioner has preferred an appeal before Respondent No.2. But, Respondent No.2 without considering the grounds has upheld the decision of Respondent p No.3 in a mechanical manner. He further submits that as per Section 9 of the 4. 4 4 JT Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 if the parent is unable to maintain himself, the tribunal may direct such children to make a monthly allowance at such monthly rate for the maintenance of such parents. But, in the present situation. Respondent No.4 is an earning member and can maintain himself and look after his own needs. Thus, the order passed by the 3'^^ respondent is not maintainable and is liable to be set aside. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner requests to pass appropriate orders. 4 5. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Paramjit Kumar Saroya v. The Union of India and another^ wherein the Apex Court held that: The second anomaly which is one of the legal questions to be examined in the present case arises from Section 16 as it is the appeal provision. It, however, specifically incorporates an appeal by "any senior citizen or a parent". V/as the intention to shut out an appeal CWP-12340-2010 (O&M) by the other aggrieved party? If it is so, could there be a situation where there are two parties both aggrieved from the same order, one preferring an appeal and other taking recourse to the supervisoryjurisdiction of the High Court. The proviso to sub section (1) of Section 16 of the said Act mandates that on appeal the children or relative has to pay the amount as determined by the Tribunal during the pendency of the appeal. This would naturally refer to a situation where appeal is by the children or the relative as there can be no question of an appeal filed by the senior citizen or parent qua stoppage of the amount. This also seems to lend credence possibly to an intent not being correctly reflected in the exact wordings. We are observing this here only for purposes of pointing out the requirement of fine tuning and wiil deal with the aspect of construction of this provision later on” 4 Learned Government Pleader for Medical Health and Family Welfare appearing for the respondents opposed for grant of any relief in this Writ Petition and prays to dismiss the same. 6. ^ 2014 see Online P&H 10864 5 on hearing the submissions, it is observed that, the Government has raised an objection that the petitioners are not having jurisdiction to file this writ petition before this Court in view of the provisions of the Senior 7. * Citizens Act. 8. Now the point that arisen for determination is that whether the right of appeal of an effected party other than the senior citizen or parent? 9. it is pertinent to note the Sections 15 and 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, reads as follows: 15. Constitution of Appeliate Tribunai. (1]The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one Appellate Tribunal for each district to hear the appeal against the order of the Tribunal. ’ (2)The Appellate Tribunal shall be presided over by an officer not below the rank of District Magistrate. 16. Appeals. (DAny senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be, aggrieved by an order of a Tribunal may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunai: Provided that on appeal, the children or relative who is required to pay any amount in terms of such maintenance order shall continue to pay to such parent the amount so ordered, in the manner directed by the Appellate Tribunal; Provided further that the Appellate Tribunal may, entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of sixty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. (2)On receipt of an appeal, the Appellate Tribunal shall, cause a notice to be served upon the respondent. £3)The Appellate Tribunal may call for the record of proceedings from the Tribunal against whose order the appeal is preferred. {^The Appellate Tribunal may, after examining the appeal and the records called for either allow or reject the appeal. (51The Appellate Tribunal shall, adjudicate and decide upon the appeal filed against the order of the Tribunal and the order of the Appellate Tribunal shall be final: Provided that no appeal shall be rejected unless an opportunity has been given to both the parties of being heard in person or through a duly authorised representative. P 6 4 i: (^The Appellate Tribunal shall make an endeavour to pronounce its order in writing within one month of the receipt of an appeal. iZlA copy of every order made under sub-section (5) shall be sent to both the parties free of cost. 10. An appeal is envisaged "against the order of the Tribunal". This is how Section 15 reads. It does not say an appeal only by a senior citizen parent. However, sub section (1) of Section 16 refers to any senior citizen or a parent "aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal". This seeks to give an 4 impression on a plain reading as if only a senior citizen or parent can prefer an appeal and, thus, restricting the appeal to only one set of party, while denying the right of appeal to the opposite side who are liable to maintain. or 11. However, this is not followed by the first proviso which deals with the operation of the impugned order during the pendency of the appeal and clarifies that the pendency of the appeal will not come in any manner in the way of the children or relative who is required to pay any amount in terms of any such order to continue to pay the amount. Now it can hardly be envisaged that in an appeal filed by the senior citizen or parent, there could be a question of absence of stay. Such absence of stay was only envisaged where the appeal is preferred by a children or relative. It is that eventuality the proviso deals with. The proviso is, thus, consistent with what has been set out 4 in Section 15 of the said Act. 12. The petitioners assailed the provisions of sub section (1) of Section 16 of the said Act on the ground that there cannot be a right to appeal only to of the affected parties, as anomalous situation would be created against the same order with which both the parties may be aggrieved i.e. where a greater or lesser claim is made in relation to any property or maintenance, as party being the senior citizen or parent would prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, while the party which is liable to give maintenance would have to take recourse to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court. Thus, two parallel proceedings in the different forums qua the same order would one one arise. 13. The right to file an appeal is not excluded specifically by the provisions of Section 16(1) of the said Act, but it fails/omits to mention. This Court may refer to sub section (5) of Section 16 which provides finality to the order of the Tribunal. Such finality can only be achieved after hearing .. of both the sides. If the appeal is confined to only one party, then grievances the finality can only be qua the rights of that party which has preferred the appeal and cannot be envisaged qua the opposite party which would have to take recourse to Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, another sub section of the same Section gives credence to the plea that Section 16(.1J of the said Act should be read in a manner as to provide for appeal to both the parties. The proviso to sub section (5) further stipulates that an appeal cannot be rejected unless an opportunity has been given to both the parties of being heard. The reference of right to both the parties have to be in the context of an < appeal by either of the parties as otherwise it would have envisaged that no order could be passed without hearing the child or the other party. 8 14. So, in view of the above decision of the Hon’ble the present case, the petitioners Supreme Court, in are also come under purview of Section 16(1) of the Act and therefore the present writ petition is maintainable. 15. On perusing the material available on record and on considering the submissions of both the learned counsels, this Court further observed that the grounds which were raised by the petitioner have the Appellate Tribunal simply adopted the order of Officer and disposed of the appeal. not been answered by the Revenue Divisional It appears that without giving proper reasons and without affording an opportunity to the parties the Appellate Therefore, this Court IS inclined to dispose of the writ petition while setting aside the impugned order and also inclined to remand back the matter to the Tribunal has mechanically passed the impugned order. appellate tribunal for fresh consideration. As this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission, no need to issue notice to the un-official respondents. 16. Accordingly, the impugned order and judgment in Appeal No.01.2024 dated 02.02.2025 on the file of the Court of the Appellate Tribunal For Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens-2 nd respondent, is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 2^^ respondent for fresh consideration. Further, the 2"^^ Respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate reasoned orders in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity to the parties, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, the respondents are directed not to proceed further pursuant J 9 rd respondent vide Appeal to Clause 2 of the order passed by the 3 No.Rc.B.01/2022, dated 05.05.2023. Clause 2 of the said order is extracted here under:- The transfer of property in respect of the house bearing ■ Number.4-149-100, Teachers colony of the Dhone Town and Mandal by way of unregistered document made by the applicant No. 1 in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are deemed to have been made by fraud or coercion or under undue influence and the said transfer is declared void u/s.23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of parents and senior citizen Act, 2007. The Municipal Commissioner, Dhone shall take necessary action in compliance of this ordeT’. '2. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There 17. shall be no order as to costs. 18. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TtM^FICER //TRUE COPY// SEC To, 1 The Principal Secretary, Health Medical and Family Welfare Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The CollectbV and District Magistrate, (Appellate Tribunal, Maintenance and welfare of Parents and Sr Citizens) Nandyala District. 3. The Reveihue Divisional Officer, Dhone, Nandyal District. 4. The Principal Secretary, Department for Women Children Disabled and Senior Citizens DW, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 5. One CC to Sri LakshmikanthReddy Desai, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCS to GP for Medical Health & Family Welfare, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Two CCs to GP for Women Development Child Welfare, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. Three CD Copies RAM ■» HIGH COURT DATED: 25/02/2025 ORDER ^ 2 5 MAR 2C25 | ^ . Current Section . ^ ro WP.No.4172 of 2025 II DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS