Kondaveeti Anuradha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

KONDAVEETI ANURADHA, D/O. N. VARALAKSHMI, W/O. KONDAVEETI VENKATA RAMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. VIPPARLA VILLAGE, KROSURU MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT - 522 410

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST., - 522 238

¶13

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, - CUM - SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL FOR PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS, GUNTUR - 522 004

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, GUNTUR WEST MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 001

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, THULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 237

¶16

NUTHALAPATI VARALAKSHMI, W/O. KRISHNARJUNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, R/O. RAMA HEIGHTS, FLAT NO 504, TARAKA RAMA NAGAR, JKC COLLEGE ROAD, GUNTUR CITY, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 006

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

2

¶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 more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to Order of the 2nd Respondent in OP 1273 / 2025 dt. 04.12.2025, whereby ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month to the Petitioner therein by the Respondent therein by exceeding the statutory limits as contemplated under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act - 2007 as illegal, arbitrary, and excessive exercise of jurisdiction besides violation of principles of natural justice and to consequently set - aside the same in the interest of justice and to pass

¶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 may be pleased to suspend the operation of Order dt; 04.12.2025 in OP 1273 / 2025 passed by the 2nd Respondent and to pass such other order or orders this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.MSVS SUDHA RANI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR WOMEN DEV CHILD WELFARE

¶26

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

3

¶29

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO:7583/2026

¶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 more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to Order of the 2^nd Respondent in OP 1273/2025 dt.04.12.2025 whereby ordered to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month to the Petitioner therein by the Respondent therein by exceeding the statutory limits as contemplated under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 as illegal, arbitrary and excessive exercise of jurisdiction besides violation of principles of natural justice and to consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice and to 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 respondent No.2 herein passed an order dated 04.12.2025 in O.P.No.1273 of 2025, directing the petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month to her mother/ respondent No.5 towards maintenance, who filed OP before the respondent No.3.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 9 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 56 of 2007”) contemplates that the amount of maintenance can be awarded for the welfare of a senior citizen/parent shall not exceed Rs.10,000/-. Whereas, contrary to Section 9 of Act 56 of 2007, the

¶39

4

¶40

respondent No.2, without considering the counter affidavit filed before him, and despite the specific plea of the petitioner that to grant maintenance in accordance with the provisions of the Act, passed an order dated 04.12.2025 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month towards maintenance. The said order, being contrary to law, is liable to be set aside.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No.5 had three children apart from the petitioner, one elder daughter and one son. As per the family partition, the properties were inherited by the father of the petitioner were devolved upon the elder daughter and son and the property acquired by the respondent No.5/ mother by way of Stridhana from her parents was parted in favour of the petitioner herein by way of gift deed No.2549/2018 dated 07.05.2018. The said alienation by his mother in favour of the petitioner is pursuant to the family settlement but it was transferred by way of gift deed. She further submits that the petitioner is ready to pay the monthly maintenance to her mother/ respondent No.5 in accordance with Section 9 of the Act 56 of 2007.

¶42

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondents furnished written instructions dated 16.03.2026, wherein, it is stated that the respondent No.5 is staying at Flat No.504, Rama Heights, Taraka Rama Nagar, Guntur West Mandal, Guntur District along with her husband which belongs to their elder daughter. It is further stated that the respondent No.5 herein gifted an agricultural land of Ac.4.49 cents situated at Peaddaparimi Village in favour of the petitioner herein by way of registered gift deed

¶43

5

¶44

document No.2549/2018 dated 07.05.2018. Learned Government Pleader submits that having enjoyed the property gifted by the respondent No.5, the petitioner herein did not look after the well being of the respondent No.5. Having no other option, the respondent No.5 herein filed an application before

¶45

the respondent No.2 under Section 5 of the Act 56 of 2007 seeking maintenance and for cancellation of registered gift deed dated 07.05.2018 executed in favour of the petitioner under Section 23 of the Act 56 of 2007. While adjudicating of the application filed by the respondent No.5 the petitioner herein agreed to pay the maintenance and medical expenses to the extent of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner. As such, even though the limitation of as prescribed under Section 9 of the Act is Rs.10,000/-, the petitioner agreed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month towards maintenance. Therefore, the respondent No.2 herein ventured to pass the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay Rs.25,000/- per month to the petitioner.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents and on perusal of the material placed on record, the fact remains that the respondent No.5 herein moved an application before the competent authority/ Tribunal under Section 5 of the Act 56 of 2007 seeking for maintenance as well as cancellation of gift deed dated 07.05.2018 executed in favour of the petitioner as per Section 23 of the Act 56 of 2007. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, even though the petitioner herein filed counter affidavit before the Tribunal stating that she is ready to pay the maintenance as prescribed under Section 9 of the Act 56 of 2007, but

¶47

6

¶48

contrary to the counter, as if the petitioner has agreed to pay Rs.25,000/- and awarding Rs.25,000/- is contrary to law is valid and merits on submission on part of the petitioner. As contended by the learned Government Pleader through written instructions furnished by the respondents that the petitioner herself agreed for payment of Rs.25,000/- is not substantiated by way of any other evidence except stating through written instructions. It also a fact that the respondent No.5 herein is the senior citizen and who executed a gift deed in favour of the petitioner, as such, respondent No.5 is entitled to move an application before the respondent No.2 for appropriate orders for protection of her life as well as the property as contemplated under the Act 56 of 2007. It is pertinent to discuss regarding quantum of amount to be awarded. It is true Section 9 of the Act 56 of 2007 contemplates with a specific limit of Rs.10,000/- towards maintenance at the time of enactment in the year 2007. Now two decades/ 20 years passed away, that amount as prescribed in the year 2007 should be enhanced. It is settled theory of world in economics that the value of rupee would be reduced day by day due to inflation. Therefore, the amount Rs.10,000/- as prescribed at Section 9 of the Act 56 of 2007 should not be static, it should be enhanced as per inflation, if that is so, the amount awarded is not exorbitant as canvassed by the petitioner.

¶49

In view of the reasons stated above and on perusal of the Section 9 of the Act 56 of 2007, it is appropriate for this Court to modify the impugned order dated 04.12.2025 by awarding an amount of Rs.20,000/- as monthly maintenance to the respondent No.5 apart from other well being of medical

¶50

7

¶51

expenses and other miscellaneous expenses if any shall be borne by the petitioner. If the petitioner fails to address the same, the respondent No.5 is entitled to proceed further as per Section 23 of the Act 56 of 2007.

¶52