Disposed

Nukala Vidyullatha Reddy v. the State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Sept 2025WP/25918/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A senior citizen sought enforcement of a Tribunal's maintenance order directing her daughters to pay monthly amounts; one daughter paid, the other did not, and the Tribunal ignored representations. The High Court directed the Tribunal to consider the representations and pass orders after notice and hearing within thirty working days.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; respondent No.2 directed to consider petitioner's representations and pass appropriate orders after notice and hearing within 30 working days.

Nukala Vidyullatha Reddy Vs the State of Telangana — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t^3168I

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

IMONDAY, THE FIRSI DAY^{OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY FIVE}

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN}

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO:^{25918 OF 2025}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Nukala Vidyullatha Reddy Wife of Late Srinath^{Reddy,aged about64 years,} H"iiount oi clr navi,^H No.2-6-262, block no.6,^{ward no.2,HousingBoard,} Hanmakonda District, Telan gana State.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1 THE STATE OF TELANGANA,^{Represented by its Principal Secretary,} Revenue Department, Secretariat,^Telangana-

¶14

z THE PRESIDING OFFICER,^{MaintenanceTribunal and Revenue Division} Court, Thorrur, Mahbubabad^Diskict.

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,^{MahbubabadDistrict.}

¶16

PAKANATI SRIDEVI, Wife of^{Sri SrujanReddy' aged about 49 years,} Occupation Business,^{Resident of H.No 23-2-59lA'/1 , New Sayampeta} Goveinment High School,^{Hunter Road, Hanmakonda,TehnganaState}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of^{lhe constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith,the High courtmay be} pleased to issue an appropriate it, order^{or Direction,more particularly one in the} nature of writ of Mandamus.^{a. Declaring the action of RespondentNo.2 in not} taking any action on the^{repfesentationand applicationof the Petitionerdated} 27.03.2023, 26.04.2024.^{30.09.2024 and 16.12.2024as well as several oral} representations including^{telephoniccommunicationbetweenAugust 2023 to} August 2024, for^{implementationofOrder dated19'07 '2023 in} R.C.No.C/619/2023^{passedby the RespondentNo.2, for payment of monthly} expenses of Rs.1 .0,000/-^{per month by the RespondentNo.2 to the Petitioner} commencing f rom^{1 .9.07.2023 as illegal, arbitrary, non-exercise of statutory}

¶19

powers as contemprated U/s.1.1 0f the lvraintenance and werfare of parents and Senior citizens Act, 2007 and viorative of Articre .14 and 21 of theconstitution of lndia b Direct the Respondent No.2 to forthwith take action for imprementation of Orders dated .1 .9.07.2023 in R.C.No.C/6.19/2023 passed by the Respondent No.2 thereby to take a' necessary steps for recovery of the dues and the continuation of monthly payments from. the Respondent No.4 to the petitioner.

¶20

IA NO: 1 oF 2025

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC prayrng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondent No.2 to forthwith take action for imprementation of orders dated 1907 2023 in R.c No.Cr61gt2o23 passed by the Respondent No.2 so far as the recovery of the dues and the continuation of monthry payments from the Respondent No.4 to the petitioner is concerned.

¶22

Counset for the petitioner : SRI DHARMESH D.K.JAISWAL

¶23

COUNSCT fOr thE RESPONdENTS NO.1tO3: SRI L.RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.4 :

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

¶26

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEK. LAKSHMAN}

¶27

WRIT PETITION^{No.259 18 0F 2025}

¶28

ORAL^ORDER:

¶29

Heard learned^{counsel for thepetitioner and} Mr.L.Ravinder,^{learned AssistantGovernment Pleader for} Revenue^{appearing for the respondents'}

¶30

The Petitioner^{herein is the mother aldthe 4th} respondent^{is the elder daughterof the petitioner'The} petitioner herein^{filed an applicationunder Section 4 of the} Maintenance^{And Welfare of Parents ald Senior Citizens} Act, 2OO7^{(for short 'the Act) before ttre 2nd respondent} seeking maintenance^{from 4th respondent i'e'' Pakanati} Sridevi-elder^{daughterand younger daughterPingali} Srivani.Videorderdatedlg'O7'2023,the2"drebpondent directed the^{4tn respondentand Pingali Srivani to pay an} amount^{of Rs.1O,OOO} f^{- everymonth to the petitioner'}

¶31

Challenging^{the said order, the 4th respondentfiled a} writ petition^{vide W.P.No.34614of 2023 and this Court vide} orderdated22.oT.2o24dismissedthesaidwritpetition. According to^{the learned connselfor the petitioner'the 4*'} responcient did^{not preferany appealchallenging the said}

r-!

order. It attained frnality. Therefore, petitioner had submitted representations dated 27.O3.2O23, 26.O4.2024, 3O.O9.2O24 and 16.72.2024 to respondent No.2 with a request to enforce the said order. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said representations, the 2"a respondent did not act upon the same. Aggrieved by the said inaction of the 2"a respondent, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶36

According to the petitioner, her younger daughter has been paying the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1O,OOO/_p.m. awarded by the 2.d respondent vide order 19.07.2023, to the petitioner and there is no default on her part.

¶37

Whereas learned Assistalt Government^rpleader for Child and Social Welfare Department on instructions would submit thit the 2.d respondent will consider the said representations submitted by the petitioner seeking enforcement of the order passed by the 2"a respondent by putting the petitioner and the 4th respondent on notice and affording them an opportunity.

¶38

¶39

¶40

It is relevant^{to note that Section11 of the Act deal} with Enforcement^{of order of maintenalce'It is extracted} below:

¶41

"(1) A copy of the^{order ofmaintenance and} including the^{order regardingexpenses of proceedings'} as the^{case may be, shallbe givenwithout payment of} any fee to^{the senior citizenor to parent'as the casemay} be, in whose^{favour it is made and such order maybe} e.rfo."ed^{by any Tribunalin any placewherethe person} against whom^{it ismade,such Tribunal on being} satisfied^{as to the identity of the parties and the non-} or as lhe^{case maYbe,} payment o[ the^allowance, expenses,^due.

¶42

{

¶43

A maintenance^{ordermade under this Act shall} (21 have the^{same force and effect as an order passed under} Chapter^{IX of the Codeof Criminal Procedure'1973(2 of} 197 4l arrd,^{shall be executedin the manner prgscribed} for the execution^{of such order by that Code'"}

¶44

7 In the light^{of above submissions,this Writ Petition is} 2'd respondent^{to consider the} disposed^{of directing the} dated 27.03^{.2023, 26.O4'2024,} aforesaid^{representations} 3O.OI.2O24^{arld 16.12'2024 submitted by the petitioner} and pass^{appropriate orders in accordance with law' by} putting the^{petitioner and the 4th respondenton notice arrd}

¶45

¶46

by affording them an opportunity. He shall complete the entire exercise within thirty (30) working days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

As a sequel, miscellaleous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶48

SD/-P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

'1 The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, State Of Telangana, Telangana.

¶53

The Presiding officer, Maintenance Tribunar and Revenue Division court, I horrur, Mahbubabad District.

¶54

The District Collector, Mahbubabad District.

¶55

One CC to SRt DHARMESH D.K.JA|SWAL, Advocate tOFUCl

¶56

Two CCs to Gp FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana. lourl

¶57

Two CD Copies.

BSK BS

HIGH COURT

DATED:01t}9t2O2S

Li
P 2$25
TC

ORDER

WP.No.25918 of ZO2S

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITTON WITHOUT COSTS wL1^lu

Nukala Vidyullatha Reddy v. the State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nukala Vidyullatha Reddy v. the State of Telangana

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

Shaik Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana

Sowkuntla Yadaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Kommu Bharath Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Mallagalla Chandrakala Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Pedda Yadamma Vs The State of Telangana

Paladugu Rajendra Prasad Vs The State of Telangana