Sri Kamini Sreenu Vs Sri Daivaadeenam — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

Sri Kamini Sreenu Vs Sri Daivaadeenam — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondent No.3 directed to pay compensation/fine of Rs.45,000/- to the Petitioner in lieu of conviction and jail sentence, payable within three (03) weeks; Contempt Case closed with no order as to costs; interlocutory applications closed in terms of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No.3 committed willful contempt by violating the orders of this Court passed in W.P.No.20291 of 2024 dated 13-09-2024, including damage to mango trees, stone pillars and iron fencing. +1 more

Court's answer

Respondent No.3 willfully violated the Orders of this Court, having damaged mango trees of different ages, stone pillars and iron fencing; the Court had formed a prima facie opinion to this effect on consideration of the affidavits filed by both parties.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the plea of leniency (widowhood, absence of proper means of livelihood, unconditional apology tendered out of remorse), the Court directed Respondent No.3 to pay compensation/fine of Rs.45,000/- to the Petitioner in lieu of conviction and sentencing her to jail.

Key takeaways

Payment of Rs.45,000/- to be made within three (03) weeks from the date of the order; the request for four weeks made by Respondent No.3 present in Court was not accepted.ratio¶¶41
Admonition: the Court indicated it would not show any lenience henceforth if Respondent No.3 repeats such acts of contempt of court.obiter¶¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Sections 10 to 12 — willful violation of orders dated 13-09-2024 in W.P.No.20291 of 2024 — Respondent No.3 (Smt Kamini Anjanamma) found to have willfully violated the orders of this Court by damaging mango trees of different ages, stone pillars and iron fencing — damage assessed at Rs.49,700/- per Petitioner's affidavit dated 18.03.2026 — on Counsel's plea for leniency citing widowhood, lack of means of livelihood and unconditional apology tendered out of remorse, Court imposed compensation/fine of Rs.45,000/- on Respondent No.3 in lieu of conviction and imprisonment, payable within three (03) weeks — admonition that no lenience would be shown upon repetition — Contempt Case closed; no order as to costs (Single Judge: Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, J; decided 02.04.2026).

APHC010569442024

[3328]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4632/2024

Between:

SRI KAMINI SREENU, S/O RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF D.NO.2/760, SIVAJINAGAR, T.SUNDUPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

SRI DAIVAADEENAM, TAHSILDAR, T.SUNDUPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

SRI BASHA, S/O NOT KNOWN. VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, NADIMI THURAKAPALLI, T.SUNDUPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

SMT KAMINI ANJANAMMA, W/O LATE VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE. RESIDENT OF BURRALADINNEPALLIVILLAGE, T.SUNDUPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, T. SUNDUPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. R- 4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED.13.11.2025 IN CC NO.4632 OF 2024.

...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

2

be pleased to may be pleased to direct notice to the respondents and punish the respondents under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for willful violation of the orders of this Honourable court passed in W.P.No.20291 of 2024, dated 13-09-2024 by his Lordships Justice Gannamaneni Rama Krishna Prasad and pass such

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 may be pleased to implead the proposed respondent as Respondent No.4 in C.C.No.4632. of 2024 in W.P.No.20291 of 2024, dated 13-09-2024 in the interest of justice and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.VUTUPALLI RAJANNA

Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

1.RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM

2.A JAYANTHI

3.SYED KHADER MASTAN

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4632 OF 2024

The Court made the following ORAL ORDER:

Sri Vutupalli Rajanna, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Syed Khadar Mastan, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3.

The present Contempt Case proceedings have been initiated against the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. After this Court had perused the initial material, this Court had issued notices to the Respondents.

The photographs filed by the Petitioner along with Contempt Affidavit would indicate that the Respondent No.3 had willfully violated the orders of this Court, thereby rendered her acts to be contemptuous, in the view of this Court.

Various Affidavits have been filed by both the parties. This Court, having considered the said Affidavits had formed a prima facie opinion that Respondent No.3 had violated the Orders of this Court willfully and had damaged the Mango trees of different ages and also the stone pillars and the iron fencing.

Since the iron fencing can be readjusted, this Court had directed the Petitioner to file an Affidavit indicating the damage insofar as stone pillars are concerned and the Mango trees. The Petitioner has filed an Affidavit on 18.03.2026. Para-3 of the Affidavit dated 18.03.2026 would indicate the cost of all Mango trees, stone pillars and the expenditure incurred by the Petitioner for transportation as well as the labour totaling to Rs.49,700/-.

At the outset, this Court had indicated to the Respondent No.3 that she shall pay three times the amount of costs incurred by the Petitioner. However Sri Khadar Mastan, Ld. Counsel representing the Respondent No.3 would request this Court to take a lenient view since the Respondent No.3 is a

4

widow and does not have proper means of livelihood and that she had tendered unconditional apology out of remorse. Having considered the same, this Court is of the view that the Respondent No.3 shall pay compensation/fine of Rs.45,000/- to the Petitioner in lieu of conviction and sentencing her to jail. It is indicated that this Court would not show any lenience henceforth if Respondent No.3 repeats such acts of Contempt of Court.

Ms. Kamineni Anjanamma (Respondent No.3), who is present in the Court, has requested this Court to grant four (04) weeks time for making the payment of Rs.45,000/- to the Petitioner. However, this Court is of the view that the amount should be paid within three (03) weeks from today.

With these observations and directions, this Contempt Case is closed. No order as to costs.

Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.

______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J

Date: 02.04.2026 MNR

5

183

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4632 OF 2024

Dt: 02.04.2026

Mnr