Dismissed

Smt. Konuganti Raghavarani, v. Smt. Konuganti Anasuya

Telangana HC1 May 2025WA/468/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant challenged Single Judge directions enforcing a maintenance tribunal order requiring her family to give house portion and monthly payment to her mother-in-law, contending enforcement lay under the Senior Citizens Act and a related writ was pending. The Division Bench found no plea of pendency on record and dismissed the appeal, keeping the order subject to the pending writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Konuganti Raghavarani, Vs Smt. Konuganti… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t³⁴⁴⁶¹

¶2

HIGH^{couRr t?+#ffIirdFTELANGANA}

¶3

H,'Si,?6J'lT'"'^tB"B["-?{Il0l

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE^{HONOURABLE THEACTIN.GCHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL} THE^{HONOURABUC S#iUSTTCE RENUKA YARA}

¶6

OF²⁰²⁵ AP^{PEALNO: 468}

¶7

t the Writ^{Appeal underclause 15 of the Letters PatentWrit prefened agains} High order^{dated 17 tOZtzO2Sin W p ftfo '14258 of 2O22ard pass on the file of the} Court.

¶8

Between: ! r^,r^. ehiva^{prasadRaiu, as*s-ggyt} ffi,XH'i ' Bsf8fiisfr^{,llt:&Tfi]ii,s]bYls'i':'['-[1?:'^nAZu&"?f"TH:fiX'U8fl[} District' NO'6 ...APPELLANT'RESPONDENT

¶9

AND, Ri,,liffi ',r.lll ffi ;,ffi ,y..'Si hi$.Y"?11nJTffAY n['#"?T8[?fff ...WRIT^PETITONER '*-

¶10

...WRIT^PETITONER

¶11

The^{State of relangana,Rep. by its principar Secretary,Revenue andsocial} ' wJritt Department Hyderabacl

¶12

The^{Collector and District Magistrate' Nalgonda'}

¶13

4rheRevenu"qy.i",,tX'".Jffi '##:ilii#i[1',]::i:{,X:N3iii"#iB:'?lst Welfare^{of Seniorc}

¶14

The^{Sub-Divisional Police Officer' Miryalaguda Town' Nalgonda Didrict'}

¶15

6.TheStationHouseofficer,MiryalagudaTownPoliceStation,Nalgonda District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶17

7 ShivaPrasadRaiu,.S/o.!'tEoYffi Occ. Agriculture,^{R/o H'No'2} lll,H'ji#:ffi :ir'rttXvfo',l",i,Nrrgono" District

¶18

I [,ff tYfl ii31iS#l'..:l",if :."Jt3fl ]l,fi?&,tn?141'Jo'*vears'Fr/o

¶19

o [fi ,:l,ttx;i3efi :it..,fi ,h:1:rr,i,,,+.#:,r;HT.io;l:!;"0,,**,*,.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS/RESPOIJDENTS

¶21

IA NO:3OLlro?i NO.7 TO 9

¶22

petitiorr urcrer Se the affidav* rire: in #il::Hffi:':^:llin the circurnstances stated in suspend the ,,p3-ation ,t .-r.^]^l:::""'.t1" High cotr,t nrav be pteased to issued by . o,n ,".r"i::::#:::]ffi":f^N3r27/2o20, o^,uo io-orlrox proceedings plln;g;rnt to tto o,r^^ -.^:".":'l''' to suspenrJ th. operation of the m; ;:^j :ii j, i;rT:,ffi ff::: :: Jliti l" t r: x:" _,,;;:l

¶23

counsel for ther l,Frpellant: sRt RApoLU BHASKAR

¶24

Counsel forthe Respondent No.l: SRI V. MURALI MANOHIR Counsel for the Re spondent Nos.2,3 and 4: Gp FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Rr:r;oondent Nos.S and 6: SRI MAHESH RAJE Gl) FOR HOME Counsel for the Il€,-. I,ondent Nos.7 to g:__

¶25

The Court made the fbllowing: ORDER

¶26

i I I

¶27

TIIE^{TION'BLE THE ACTING 9IIEF JUSTICE SUJOYPAUL} TrrE^H.N'BLE "*"'^{S3t'"E REN,KA YARA}

¶28

No.^{464 of 202s} wRl^T

¶29

NT:^{(P.r *e Hon'ble the Acting ChiefJusttce Sujog Paul)} JUD^GME learned^{counsel for theapPe[ant;} Sn^{RaPolu Bhaskar'} Sri^{V-Murali Manohar'learned counsel for resPondent No'l;} and Sri^{Mahesh Raje' learned GovernmentPleader for Home' for} respondent^{Nos'Sand 6'}

¶30

With^{the consent' finallY heard'} apPeal^{takes excePtion to the order Passed} 3 This^{intra Court} in^{W.P'No'14258of 2022dated} Single^Judge by the^learned lI7.02.2025.

¶31

The^{relevantfacts lor adjudication of this writ appeal are} that^{respondentNo.1 (writ petitioner), who is the mother-in-laflof} the^{appellant, preferred an application before the Revenue} Divisional^{Ofircer-cum-Special Tribunal'Miryalaguda'whichwas} registered^{as caseNo'A13727 l2O2O for maintenance' The said} authority,^{by an order dated20 'O7 '2021'directed respondent} Nos.7^{to 9 to provide respondent No' 1 the ground floor portion of}

¶32

¶33

the hous: irr:aring No.2O_ I I S 16 stay during her lif,:time and her three son s ,,ilre a.lso directed to pay "rr^{amount of F:s.S,OOO/^} per month lo h:r arld not to raise appellant any objections in that regard. The r.rr s;uccessfully cha.llenged the said crd<,r in No.C I / 60i, T r, 2,02 I, whichcame to be dismissed or.t LC.O9.2O2l.Appeal

¶34

Respr:nl6n1 No. I liled W.P.No.t4258 following ;-elie1 ot 2C22 seeking the

¶35

.,1.c r the above .-,, g*lll.:rg,.e-r$,*****rr ; I [ ','ifl filrf".i'fi?{:i,il}{,,i ilf [t#i ,i:[:il ';,"!33?6i,;,:.,n^ 0.13'i[,0',? 'ri.';;;^{'" ;t} ;HiTIi,,^{;;-;;ilI:"i?H?.:iJl-jX"}_"',1: t!:^{. i l,ff:l} I:;i^{:'i, ,'T"',H;;':]-1"I"} ';';;,.";'ll:^''ll1[], ff:::L,: H, r:f,.fii=^{i::!i,i.o3T,uB1:).X,,'l} "1".1;.i i:',;:T.,", I ; Iff [.ili," s,i{ _.iI" l;4; --;: l; + l}:i orders as h H;;bkt:*:"-""d .pass^{such orhcr} ordr r or circumsra," .,;ii;;'.;:1,"^t., deem fit and p,rop, r ir rhe

¶36

Learned t,inr1ie, after hearing both the parlies. issued rhe

¶37

following dire,:t on s

¶38

{ (

¶39

)

¶40

,,,P.+;i:f*:$.i1:f-'i# :i::::x$'.lL':rm.ffi^'r.1;i"",1t'trenderingit iJ^ .-".,.,ndent^{Nos.o -r'it} ^ p"ti,.l:r'".1:,1""."cessiries rs " :'l:'::;1;;'^portion "l'-':'"":";;;"ide basic^n' gro-ulo, ',',"lir-t ""a fail,,.6 '- : ^,^^^{A to y have shown} i,r['ir#$;;;+:"jffi l]!'+i:l:***:"'*:] and these^{taulnts circumsf-'::: .-.:-::.} ";.i"e rhp case r':!_"::1T"i1i,^EJa^{lor arrJ} '---,' ""rv ]ina.uit^.' .,dj:Y1'11":T#il"';:,ilI,,e.,^{who is a Sentor} add^{to the hardsnrP^"} Cirjzrert. :- ..owed^andthe

¶41

**fg5e'-mfmDistrict^{by construcu.rY-:;;;.} the^respond ";;";;;;""'"'d-'^1,:-""^'.".:i'.',i"".tn.iespondentNos'6'to ;;'il"^;"'"""qq ryl:':"p,:il#'i",ir,"""'^{as directed bv the} E'il;tl^{pay maintenan": Y::'"'^:/2r monthsfrom today'In} i.i;;;"i^{ri'ithin a per iod,} "^1.'=%";'"^t;' #it-'o '',p tv th:' 1,'l: it " .u""t,^ti'e '.'sniilii:::","J":; "r,uii r"r.'^{strinsentactron} oi-,i^{i" co"}, *" =.fH::,';i.'"rla.. ,i..::"".'.Tr"H ioj [: against^{them as} .^pr and [rle a complrart--\ 62.'io'^{citi""""otl.,3l"o,,'rrL.ltsi-}""''hs from todav'" Registry,^{within a Pt}

¶42

7 . karned^{counscl for theappellant raised two-fold} submissions'^{Firstly' he submitstha[ againstthe appellateorder'} the^{appellant and her husbandhled W'P'No'30913of ZOZl' *hbh</sup> is pending^{consideration' lrarned counsel for the appellant </sup> submits^{that the learnedSingleJudge was apprised about the}}}

¶43

¶44

pender r<:1, of the sal ftatrr.' writ Petition with a r ,r, ,. n.:: prayer to link both the u" Paid 16 "'"n ] placir:g r.riance or, ao jecfion 1I of the Secondly' by parenr" ,,,^ ^ - ".rrf"""". "rq,rrr'enance a-rr d well,are of -' - oenror c iti r^^^ ^ l zens Act' 2ooz (hertt 'the A,.r , ,, _. | ,. lS SUbn after referred to as' d that for enforcer rDainterra.n,-^.-., a differe of the order of the Act a,rcr rherefor",tt ""t"o*n,,]"ttt in issuin g,r,,, i-prer"aTe leamed .t";;;:; :: :H;::

¶45

B. ps1 c,.rrl 'ra, learned Government pleader for the impu gn e,:r order. -{on ," "uppo.ted Learned counsel for the Iearned t-i rvemm resporrdet rt No. i and ent pleader for Home both took a common stand that ces;pite getting suflicient oPPortunity, the atr:pellant did not file ar_v c.:rl n ter and at no point of time tnforme d the writ court regald nl: Dendency of the appellant,s writ petiti,rrr aga_lnst the aforesaid alr rellate order.

¶46

9 No otlre ;_ l,oint is pressed by the learned parties coi.r r-rscl lor the

¶47

10 We have lrr....l-d the Iearned counsel for the partles at length { t

¶48

¶49

¶50

11.^{Admittedly' the appellant has not hled the counter affrdavit} before^{the writ court' On a specifrc queryfrom the Bench' learned} counsel^{for the appellant couldnot point out any pleading in the} writ^{appeal' whereinthe appellantpleadedthat pendencyof her} writ^{petidon was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge} with^{a request to link the matter and it was turned d'own' Thus'} we frnd^{no reason to entertain such oral plea'}

¶51

12.^{It is also noteworthythat the appellant frled review petition}

¶52

in l.A'No'l^{of 2O25inW'P'No'14258 of 2022' wrticr wasdismissed} appellant^{has not hted her review petition}

¶53

on along^{15'04'2OZS' with this writ} ]tre^{appealto showwhether such a request was} made^{in the reviewpetitionfor hearing both the writ petitions} analo^{gously 'tn the absenceof any materialbeforeus' we are} unable^{to persuade ourselves with the line of argumentof the} learned^{counsel for the appellantthat the appellanthad brought} to the^{notice of the learned Single Judge that her writ petition}

¶54

) challenging^{the appellate orderwas' indeed'pending and deserves}

¶55

) analogous^heanng'

¶56

l )

¶57

13.^{So far the ground relating to enforcementof the orderof} rnaintenance^{under Section 1l of the Act is concerned' no doubt'}

¶58

¶59

then: ,,.xir;rs a statt *^provision in the st; said pro,, ,,o,, ,orj b''ok' how.,"'' of the here takes ;;. ::t" 'n" 'i,r.^{, cou} ro jurisdiction take care ""n" "r;:tra()r'[irrtuy who s,-1.c..,J.6 war rt'spondent No l' k on 16'1 , ,;r';,'::';r nor be tr r,;rated inrr t"'''. n't srrid order could Thus' we ;;to with the r.rr.r of ,n"' !-easron to interfere court in o ai"o However-, rib,:-tJz is res cnar'z jurisdiction' d to the appellant - writ petiti,.r6 iLssairing pres{ her pending needJess tr; r,- ,t:r1[16p, tht uPPtllute order' 'to u rill remain subject ,. ,^l,rr;;;.: her writ perrrrr rr.

¶60

Accorc ir.;;11,. ths r writ appear is dismisser observafiorrs : order d wit -i th e aforesaid r-s to costs.

¶61

MiscelLrn -. :us petitions pending, if any, shall stanrj closed

¶62

//TRUE COPY// I ",="?lrgfi8g[ft To, 1 2 3 :Ifi fits"i"]",i,',t]k",,::,:::""'. 4 1y*lq[l:iri#f:f, IyJ":r?:,: 3:^{.IGPforRevenue,} Hish court forthe stare crreranqana. ar 5 Two CD rlc ci,: ; TJ qr LS

HIGH COU RT

DATED:0rl rcStZOzs

JUDGMEI\I1.

WA.No.468 cff 2025

6r;;
o 11 l
|tr jU llru5
I 61.,
ot
)HE
-_=

¶68

DISMISSING I'65 WRIT APPEAL

¶69

WTHOUT C:OSTS

¶70

D @

Smt. Konuganti Raghavarani, v. Smt. Konuganti Anasuya

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Konuganti Raghavarani, v. Smt. Konuganti Anasuya

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Amma Constructions Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Rekha Sharraf Vs Birla Mallesh

Smt. R. Laxmi Siroll Vs Kandikanti Devender Goud

M/s. Indo Qatar Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner (St)

P. Hanumantha Rao Vs Smt. Renuka

M/s. Shri Shamlaji Sales Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)