Disposed

Namburu Harikrishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Aug 2026WP/5427/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed petitioners to approach the appellate authority to challenge a maintenance order, noting that appeals by children or relatives lack maintainability under Section 16 of the Act. The appeal filed by the senior citizen is subjudice.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to approach appellate authority; interim order continues till disposal of appeal.

Namburu Harikrishna Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010092342026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE 10^th DAY OF AUGUST 2026

¶4

[3330]

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.5427 of 2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

NAMBURU HARIKRISHNA, S/O. MASTHANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. SOUTH AMULUR VILLAGE T.P.GUDUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

¶10

NAMBURU SUDHAKAR,, S/O. KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O. SOUTH AMULUR VILLAGE, T.P.GUDUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HEALTH, MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE, WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY - 522 503.

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT - 524001.

¶15

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NELLORE DIVISION, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT - 524 001.

¶16

SMT SOMINENI MASTHANAMMA, W/O. LATE PENCHALAYYA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/O. SOUTH AMULUR VILLAGE, T.P.GUDUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT - 524 002.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

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 a writ of certiorari calling for records connected with the Order of the 3rd respondent in SC Act No.894/2025, dt.12.09.2025 and quash the same and consequently set aside the same by declaring the Order of the 3rd respondent in SC Act No.894/2025, dt.12.09.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, one without

¶19

¶20

jurisdiction, against principles of natural justice, against settled principles of law and also in contrary to the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶22

1.C SUBODH

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE

¶25

2.PILLIX LAW FIRM

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.5427 of 2026

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

The 4^th respondent herein invoked the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, ‘the Act, 2007’) before the 3^rd respondent for cancellation of the settlement deed/gift deed dated 24.03.2025 executed by the 4^th respondent in favour of the petitioners herein on the ground that subsequent to execution of the settlement deed/gift deed the petitioners have failed to look after the welfare of the senior citizen-R4. The 3^rd respondent disposed of the said application, vide S.C.Act.No.894/2025 order dated 12.09.2025 and has directed the petitioners to pay maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to the unofficial respondent, instead of cancelling the gift deed, the Tribunal ordered the payment of maintenance under the provisions of the Act, 2007.

¶31

Aggrieved by the said order dated 12.09.2025 in S.C.Act.No.894/2025, the 4^th respondent has preferred an appeal under the Act, 2007 before the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent has issued notice dated 30.12.2025 to the petitioners herein and the said appeal is pending before the 2^nd respondent.

¶32

The petitioners filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 12.09.2025 of the 3^rd respondent in ordering to pay maintenance to the senior citizen contending that the petitioners are not fall under the definition of ‘relative’ under Section 2(g) of the Act, 2007. This Court is oblivious to the law that no appeal is maintainable by children or

¶33

¶34

relatives under Section 16 of the Act, 2007. To avoid the conflict of decisions, the Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioners to approach the appellate authority and raise their contentions before the appellate authority. And the appellate authority is directed to address the contention of the petitioners in conjunction with the appeal filed by the senior citizen against the order of the 3^rd respondent Tribunal in S.C.Act.No.894 of 2025. The interim order granted by this Court on 02.03.2026 shall continue till the disposal of the appeal before the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent is directed to make an endeavour to disposal of the appeal filed by the senior citizen preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35

With the above said directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶37

__________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Date: 10.08.2026

siva

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶42

WRIT PETITION No.5427 of 2026

¶43

Date: 10.08.2026

¶44

siva

Namburu Harikrishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namburu Harikrishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases