::1:: APHC010032172024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 1852/2024 Between: 1. SMT SANNAMANDRA BHAGYAVATHI, W/O SANNAMANDRA MOSHE, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O DOOR NO.2-139, KESAVARAM VILLAGE ALLAVARAM MANDAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT 2. SANNAMANDRA RAVIBABU, S/O SANNAMANDRA MOSHE, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O DOOR NO.4-7-39/2, BHARAT NAGAR BOLARAM POST, SECUNDERABAD ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WOMEN CHILDREN DISABLED AND SENIOR CITIZEN DEPARTMENT WING, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI 2. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT AT AMALAPURAM 3. THE CHAIRMAN CUM REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS WELFARE TRIBUNAL, AMALAPURAM, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT 4. THE TAHSILDAR, , ALLAVARAM MANDAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT AT AMALAPURAM ::2:: 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ALLAVARAM POLICE STATION, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT AT AMALAPURAM 6. SANNAMANDRA MOSHE S/O POTHU RAJU, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, EX SERVICEMAN, R/O MILITARY COLONY, KOMARIGIRIPATNAM VILLAGE, ALLAVARAM MANDAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA 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 to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in A.P.No.1 of 2023 dated 17.08.2023 passed by the 2nd Respondent in confirming the orders passed by the 3rd Respondent in O.P.No.9 of 2022 dated 26.11.2022 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice as also provisions of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India as also contrary to the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 and consequently set aside same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P RAJKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) 2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 3. GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE(AP) 4. G RAMA GOPAL ::3:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.1852 of 2024 This Court made the following ORDER: Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that 3rd respondent herein passed orders dated 26.11.2022 in O.P.No.9 of 2022 filed by the 6th Respondent herein seeking eviction of the 1st petitioner and 2nd petitioner herein who are divorced wife and son of the 6th Respondent. The order of eviction passed by the 3rd Respondent was assailed by way of appeal before the 2nd Respondent in A.P.No.1 of 2023 and the 2nd respondent confirmed the orders of the 3rd respondent vide orders dated 17.08.2023. The 6th Respondent herein sought for eviction of the petitioners. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents while passing the orders did not consider the helplessness situation of the petitioners and ordered for eviction of the petitioners herein. Both the orders of 2nd and 3rd Respondents were assailed by way of this Writ Petition. In view of the interim orders of this Court dated ::4:: 25.01.2024, so far the petitioners have not been evicted from the subject house property. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 filed vacate stay petition wherein it is clearly and categorically stated that the 6th respondent filed petition before the 3rd respondent contending that the petitioners herein forcibly occupied his house and driven him out. Aggrieved by the same, the 6th Respondent requested the concerned authorities to take action against the petitioners herein under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Considering the facts and circumstances and rights of the 6th Respondent herein, the 3rd Respondent after conducting due enquiry and after following due procedure as contemplated, ordered for eviction of the petitioners on 26.11.2022. The said order of the 3rd Respondent was assailed by the petitioners herein by way of appeal wherein the 2nd Respondent also confirmed the orders of the 3rd Respondent. Even though the 6th Respondent was succeeded before the 3rd and 2nd Respondents, but the subject property was not handed over and petitioners were not duly evicted by the authorities in view of the interim orders of this Court. Learned counsel for the 6th respondent ::5:: submits that the orders passed by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 do not warrants interference by this Hon’ble Court. 3. Admittedly, the 1st petitioner herein is divorced wife of the 6th Respondent granted pursuant to the Decree of Divorce on 22.06.2012 and 1½ decade period was already elapsed but still the 1st petitioner herein is claiming as wife of 6th Respondent and occupied the property of the 6th Respondent which is contrary to law and she is not entitled for any protection at the cost of house property of the 6th respondent herein. Hence the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed due to lack of merits. 4. Heard both the counsel and perused the material placed on record. 5. On perusal of the material placed on record, the fact remains that the 1st petitioner herein is divorced wife of the 6th Respondent. The subject decree of divorce has been granted between the parties vide order dated 22.06.2012. It is settled law that a divorced wife is not entitled any rights over the properties of the husband i.e., 6th Respondent herein unless the Court specifies. It is not in dispute that the subject house property is an absolute property of the 6th Respondent. Therefore, in view of legal divorce granted against the 1st petitioner herein, she is not ::6:: entitled for any relief much less accommodation in respect of the subject house property of the 6th Respondent. 6. On perusal of the orders passed by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, it is clear that the orders passed after following due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and they rightly held and recognized the rights of the 6th Respondent herein. However, the petitioner is entitled to initiate appropriate proceedings to protect her life and accommodation in accordance with law. 7. In view of foregoing discussion, orders passed by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 do not warrant interference by this Hon’ble Court. Hence the present Writ Petition lacks merits. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J DT: 31.03.2026 krk ::7:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.1852 of 2024 DT: 31.03.2026 krk 91