Disposed¶51

Mungara Jeevan Kumar alias Zion KUmar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Feb 2026WP/3307/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AP High Court, Amaravati (Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J., 05.02.2026) in Writ Petition No.3307 of 2026: mandamus against tribunal's inaction on senior citizen's execution petition (filed 12.01.2024) enforcing maintenance order dated 31.12.2019 (Rs.10,000 p.m.) under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007; held execution proceedings must be decided within 90 days per Section 5(4)/Section 11; respondent No.3 directed to dispose of execution proceedings within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of, directing respondent No.3 to dispose of the execution proceedings dated 12.01.2024 of the petitioner within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ¶51

Mungara Jeevan Kumar alias Zion KUmar Vs The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the inaction of respondent No.3 in not initiating any proceedings on the Execution Petition filed on 12.01.2024 for enforcement of the maintenance order dated 31.12.2019 in OP No.F/734/2019 is illegal and arbitrary, and whether respondent No.3 should be directed to expedite and dispose of the execution proceedings within a time-bound period. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

On perusal of the material on record, the order of the tribunal/respondent No.3 dated 31.12.2019 became final, and neither appeal nor any other proceedings challenging it are pending.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

After filing of the execution proceedings for implementation of the tribunal's orders, except issuing notices, nothing was proceeded with even after lapse of two years.

¶45

Key takeaways

Once a relief/grievance requested by a senior citizen under Section 5 of the Act 56 of 2007 must be considered/disposed of within ninety days, execution proceedings should equally be disposed of within that period as contemplated under Section 5(4); once limitation is prescribed even for original proceedings, consequential or ancillary proceedings cannot be stretched beyond the period already prescribed under the Act.ratio¶45
Section 11 of the Act 56 of 2007 envisages that mere passing of orders by the authority concerned is not sufficient and orders must be executed in proper manner to achieve the object of the Act; once the authority receives an application from a senior citizen for execution proceedings, it must be dealt with as expeditiously as possible, within a period of 90 days.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Act 56 of 2007) - Sections 5, 5(4) and 11 - Enforcement of maintenance order - Senior citizen (aged 73) obtained order dated 31.12.2019 in OP No.F/734/2019 from respondent No.3 (District Revenue Divisional Officer/Presiding Officer, Maintenance Tribunal) directing his son (respondent No.4) to pay Rs.10,000/- per month; order became final with no appeal pending - Execution petition filed on 12.01.2024 under Section 11 lay unprocessed except issuance of notices for over two years - Held: Section 11 envisages that mere passing of orders is not sufficient; an execution application of a senior citizen must be dealt with as expeditiously as possible, within 90 days, consistent with the ninety-day disposal mandate of Section 5(4), since ancillary/consequential proceedings cannot be stretched beyond the period prescribed under the Act; the two-year pendency reflected negligence and insensitiveness of respondent No.3 - Writ petition disposed of directing respondent No.3 to dispose of the execution proceedings dated 12.01.2024 within four (04) weeks; no order as to costs.

¶1

APHC010055932026

¶2

[3329]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSDA Y ,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO T HOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 3307/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

MUNGARA JEEVAN K UMAR ALIAS ZION KUMAR, S/O NA G ESWARA RAO AGE 73 YEA R S, EX ARMY R/O M VEMULAPADU VILLAGE, SHANTHANUTHALA P ADU MANDAL, H/O PA R IKIDONA, CHOWDEPALLI MANDAL ONGOLE DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF A N DHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS P RINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOCI A L WELFARE DEPARTMENT. SEC R ETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUN T UR DISTRICT-522237.

¶14

THE DISTRICT CO L LECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTR A TE CUM APPELLANT AUTH O RITY, UNDER AP MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PA R ENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS A CT 2007 ONGOLE, PRAKASA M DISTRICT-523001.

¶15

THE DISTRICT R E VENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, P R ESIDING OFFICER CUM MAI N TENANCE AND WELFARE OF THE PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZ E N, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523001.

¶16

MUNGARA PRASANNA KUMAR, S/O MUNGARA JEEVA N KUMAR, C/O MUGULURI IM M ANIYELU CHIMALAMARRI VILLA G E NTR COLONY, CHIMAK U RTHY ( MANDAL), PRAKASAM D ISTRICT523226.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

¶19

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, especially one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the inaction of the respondents No.3 for not initiating any proceedings on the Execution Petition filed on 12/01/2024 on the Order passed in the file of OP No. F/734/2019 dated 31/12/2019 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to principles of Natural Justice, contrary to The maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to expedite the proceedings on the petition filed on 12/01/2024 within a time bound

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶21

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 direct the 3rd respondents to pass an interim direction to pay arrears of maintenance ordered on 31-12-2019 till the disposal of petition filed dated 12-01-2024, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.VINODIN RUTH MADAPALLI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

2.GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

¶29

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.3307 OF 2026

¶31

ORDER:-

¶32

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India

¶33

seeking the following reliefs:-

¶34

“to issue a Writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the respondents No.3 for not initiating any proceedings on the Execution Petition filed on 12/01/2024 on the Order passed in the file of OP No.F/734/2019 dated 31/12/2019 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to principles of Natural Justice contrary to The maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent to expedite the proceedings on the petition filed on 12/01/2024 within a time bound and pass such other order or orders...”

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government

¶36

Pleader for the respondents.

¶37

The case of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner being a senior citizen made an application seeking for maintenance and cancellation of gift deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent No.4 under Section 5 of the Maintenance And Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (in short ‘the Act 56 of 2007’) to the respondent No.3. Then, the respondent No.3, after conducting a detailed enquiry and by observing due procedure as contemplated under the Act 56 of 2007, passed an order dated 31.12.2019 directing the respondent No.4, who is none other than the son of

¶38

the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month and the same to be paid on or before 5^th of every month. The further case of the petitioner is that

¶39

¶40

even though the tribunal passed orders dated 31.12.2019, which became final, the respondent No.4 did not comply with the orders of the tribunal. Having no other option, the petitioner instituted execution proceedings as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act 56 of 2007 for enforcement of the orders dated 31.12.2019. Even after filing of the execution proceedings on 12.01.2024, for one reason or the other, the respondent No.3 is not taking any steps for execution of the order dated 31.12.2019, which is contrary to the scheme and object of the Act 56 of 2007. Hence, the writ petition.

¶41

On the other hand, learned Government pleader for the respondents furnished written instructions dated 04.02.2026 issued by respondent No.3, wherein, it is stated that the respondent No.3 issued notices to both the parties for enforcing the order dated 31.12.2019. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the respondent No.3 should proceed further and pass appropriate orders as per Section 11 of the Act 56 of 2007 within a period of four (04) weeks from today.

¶42

Both the learned counsels reiterated that neither appeal nor any other proceedings, are pending, challenging the order dated 31.12.2019 passed by the respondent No.3.

¶43

Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, the fact remains that the order of the tribunal/ respondent No.3 dated 31.12.2019 became final. It is observed that after filing of the execution proceedings for implementation of

¶44

¶45

the orders of the tribunal, except issuing notices, nothing was proceeded even after lapse of two years. As contended by both the learned counsel, the claim and the object of the Act 56 of 2007 contemplates that once a relief/ grievance requested by the senior citizen under Section 5 of the Act, the same would be considered/ disposed of within a period of ninety days from the date of institution of application. If that is so, even execution proceedings should be disposed of within the said period as contemplated under Section 5(4) of the Act 56 of 2007. Moreso, once the limitation period was contemplated, even for original proceedings, the consequential or ancillary proceedings cannot be stretched beyond the period already prescribed under the Act. It is further observed that Section 11 of the Act 56 of 2007 contemplates for enforcement of orders passed by the tribunal. The Section 11 of Act 56 of 2007 is extracted hereunder:

¶46

“11. Enforcement of order of maintenance

¶47

1. A copy of the order of maintenance and including the order regarding expenses of proceedings, as the case may be, shall be given without payment of any fee to the senior citizen or to parent, as the case may be, in whose favour it is made and such order may be enforced by any Tribunal in any place where the person against whom it is made, such Tribunal on being satisfied as to the identity of the parties and the non-payment of the allowance, or as the case may be, expenses, due.

¶48

2. A maintenance order made under this Act shall have the same force and effect as an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and shall be executed in the manner prescribed for the execution of such order by that Code.”

¶49

¶50

Section 11 of the Act 56 of 2007 envisages that mere passing of orders by the authority concerned is not sufficient, it should be executed in proper manner to achieve the object of the Act 56 of 2007. It is made clear that once the authority received the application from a senior citizen for execution proceedings, it must be dealt with, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of 90 days. In the instant case, admittedly, the execution petition is pending for more than two years, which reflects the negligence and insensitiveness of the respondent No.3 in considering the application of the senior citizen. Therefore, this Court deems it fit and appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing respondent No.3 to dispose of the execution proceedings, at the earliest.

¶51

Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.3 to dispose of the execution proceedings dated 12.01.2024 of the petitioner, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand

¶53

closed.

¶54

________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

¶55

Date:05.02.2026 NOTE: C.C. by 09.02.2026 (B/o) BSP

¶56

¶57

¶58

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA