K. Ganesh Vs Commissioner cum Appellate Authority — Telangana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

K. Ganesh Vs Commissioner cum Appellate Authority — Telangana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal disposed of in the aforesaid manner: maintenance retained at Rs.6,000/- p.m. for the present (no immediate enhancement); respondent Nos.5 and 6 to pay arrears of maintenance by the date printed as 't 5th Muy, 2026' and the monthly maintenance by the 7th day of every following month; maintenance to continue for nine months from the writ court's order dated 06.01.2026, rising to Rs.8,000/- thereafter; on default, appellants free to take recourse to law; no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether and when the maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/- per month payable by respondent Nos.5 and 6 to the appellant parents should be enhanced. +2 more

Court's answer

The Court is not persuaded to enhance the maintenance amount at this stage, considering that the impugned direction to pay maintenance @Rs.6,000/- was issued by the writ Court only on 06.01.2026.

Ratio / Principle

Upon hearing the parties, the Court is satisfied that as a result of its endeavour the appellant parents and respondent Nos.5 and 6 (children) are living peacefully in the same premises without any disturbance.

Key takeaways

Respondent Nos.5 and 6 undertake to pay the arrears of maintenance by the date printed as 't 5th Muy, 2026' (OCR-garbled; apparently mid-May 2026).ratio¶86
The monthly maintenance amount is to be paid by the 7th day of every following month.ratio¶86
The maintenance amount would continue for a period of nine (9) months from the date of the order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the writ Court.ratio¶86

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin), judgment dated 07.04.2026 in Writ Appeal No. 173 of 2026 (K. Ganesh and another, appellant parents, v. Commissioner cum Appellate Authority and five others, including son K. Girish and daughter-in-law K. Lakshmi as respondents 5 and 6). Filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the learned Writ Court's order dated 06.01.2026 in W.P.No.22753 of 2025, which had modified the appellate authority's order dated 22.07.2025 (Appeal No. 51/344/2025) rendered on the parents' appeal under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and had directed respondents 5 and 6 to pay Rs.6,000/- per month jointly and care for the bedridden appellant mother while permitting their stay. After respondents 5 and 6 furnished affidavits-cum-undertakings against verbal abuse, torture and obstruction to letting out the vacant first and second floors, and the Court found the parents and children living peacefully in the same premises, the appeal was disposed of: maintenance not enhanced at this stage; arrears (unpaid since January 2026) to be paid by the date printed as 't 5th Muy, 2026'; monthly maintenance payable by the 7th of every following month; maintenance to continue for nine months from 06.01.2026 and stand enhanced to Rs.8,000/- thereafter; on default the appellants may take recourse to law; no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications closed.

[³⁴⁸⁸¹

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN

WRITAPPEAL NO: 173 F 2026

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Prefened Against Order Dated OGlO1l2O26 inWP.No.22753 ot2025on thefileof the High Court.

Between:

K. Ganesh, S/o. Late K. Shankaraiah Aged. 71 years, Occ. Shop

K. Manikyam, Wo. K. Ganesh Aged. 66 years, Occ. Housewife

Both the petitioners are Rl/o. H.No. 7-1-109, ChapalBavi, Near ChapalBavi Public Garden, Secunderabad, Hyderabad

...APPELLANTS/ WRIT PETITIONERS

AND

Commissioner cum Appellate Authority, Department for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Senior Citizens and Transgender Persons Nalgonda X Roads, Malakpet, Hyderabad - 36

Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad District.

Assistant Director, Department for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Senior Citizens and Transgender Persons Nalgonda X Roads, Malakpet, Hyderabad - 36

Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad District.

K. Girish, S/o K. Ganesh Aged.46 years, Occ. Business Rl/o. H.No.7-1-109, Chapal Bavi, Near ChapalBavi Public Garden, Sec-bad, Hyderabad, Telangana500003.

Sri K. Lakshmi, Wo K.Girish Aged. 43 years, Occ. Tailor R/o. H.No. 7-1-109, Chapal Bavi, Near ChapalBavi Public Garden, Sec-bad, Hyderabad, Telangana500003.

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

:,at

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2Ct26

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in r;upport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order passed by 1st Respondent vide Appeal No. 51/344/2025 dt. 22l1tt2125 pending disposal of the writ appeal.

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI RAVI CHANDRA BEJJARAM counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 To 4: ADDL. ADvocATE GENERAL counsel for the Respondent Nos.S & 6: SRI RAPoLU ABH|NAV FoR sRl RApoLU BHASKAR

counsel for the Respondent No.1: --

The Court mader the following: JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HON'BLE THE CHTEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

WRIT APPEAL No. 173 of 2026^/

DATED z 07.04.2026

Between:

K. Ganesh and another

... Appellants

AND

Commissioner cum Appellate Authority Department . for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Senior Citizens & Transgender Persons, Malakpet, Hyderabad, and five others

... Respondents

JUDGMENT:

Sri Ravi Chandra Bejjaram, learned counsel appears f,or appellants.

Sri M. Rama Krishna, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the Office of the learned Additional

Advocate General appears for respondent Nos.2 and 4.

\

Sri Rapolu Abhinav, learned counsel appears for Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel respondent Nos.5 and 6.

/ /

HCJ (AKrS, J) & GMM, J W.A.No.l73 of 2o26

2

I I

Heard learned counsel for the appellants,^{State and}

responclent Nos.5 and 6.

V/hen the matter was taken up on^{12.02.2026,the}

following order was recorded

Order "l'he instant Writ Appeal arises out of datt:d 06.01.2026,^passed by the^{leamed Writ Courtin W.P.No.22753of} 2025, wherein challenge^{waslaid to the} order^{dated22.07.2025,passed} by respondent No.l, in appeal filed by the^{appellants (parents) under the} provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents^and Senior^Citizens Ac1,2007.

Learned Writ Court held that respondents No.5^{and6, who are} son and daughter-in-law, having contributed^{for developmentof the} subject property cannot be denied right to stayⁱⁿ the^{said property.The} order of the appellate authority was accordingly^{modifiedwitha} din:ction to respondents No.5 and 6 to^{pay Rs.6,000/- per month to the} appellants^{(parents) jointly} and take care of^{appellantNo.2,who is the} mother and is allegedly bedridden.^LearnedWrit Court^{further held that} if respondents No.5 and 6 fail to do so, they^{have no right to seek} cor,tinuation in the subject^property.

The subject property appears to be^{ground+ threefloors.} Wtrile the appellants resided in the^ground floor,^{the firstand the second} flor)rs are said to have been vacated and^{respondents No.5 and 6 are} residing in the third floor.

During the course of arguments,^{leamed counsel} for^the apJrellants submitted that the appellants^{want the subjectpropertyto be} var;ated by respondents No.5 and 6 as they are not only^{indulging in} verbal abuse and tofture, but also causing obstruction in the first^and second floors being let out to any tenants. Therefore, appellants^have bet:n constrained to prefer this Writ Appeal.

Learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 6, on being asked, ha:r sought for time to furnish an undertaking on behalf of the^said respondents that they rvould not indulge in^any activities^{like the above}

HCJ {AKrS, Jl & GlvIM, J w.A.No. 173 of 2026

3

I I

for the peaceful stay of the appellants^(parents) or for^{occupationof the} first and second floors of the^vacant building by^{anytenants on being let} out by the appellants.

Let such a statement on affidavit be brought on record^by respondents No.5 and 6 within one week.

The matter be listed on 02.03.2026;'

Thereafter, respondent Nos.5 and 6 have furnished

separate affidavits-cum-undertakings,^paras 2^and 3 of^which read as under:

"2. I submit that, I am hereby undertaking that I^{wouldn'tindulgein any} activities of verbal abuse, torture and also I^{would notindulgein causing} obstruction in the first and second floors^{being let out to any tenants.}

I submit that, I would not indulge in any activities^{like above for the} peaceful stay ofthe appellants^(parents) or for occupation ofthe^{first and} second floors of the vacant building by any^{tenants on beinglet out by} the appellants."

On the previous date, the matter was adjourned to^see

whether the arrangement arrived at pursuant to the undertaking given by respondent Nos.5 and 6 works out or not. It was observed that both the parties would exercise restraint in the meantime.

Today, when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the arrangement is working out smoothly and the appellant parents are happy rvith

HCJ (AKrS, J) & cMM, J W.A.No.l73 of2026

4

it. Hora'ever, the appellants have requested for increase in the

maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/-.

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 submits that respon<lent No.5 is suffering from epilepSy. Moreover, the first and second floors are available for being let out by the appellant parents. Therefore, the amount of maintenance may not be increased for the present.

l,earned counsel for the appellants submits that respon'lent Nos.5 and 6 have not made payment of maintenance, as directed by the writ Court @Rs.6,000/- per month, to both the appellants jointly since January, 2026.

[Jpon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfie'd that as a result of the endeavour taken by the Court, the appellant parents and respondent Nos.5 and 6, children, are living peacefully in the same premises without any disturbance

\ \

10.^(lonsidering the fact that the impugned direction to pay

\

maintenance @Rs.6,0001- has been issued only on 06.01 .2026

t

HCJ (AKrS, Jl & GMM,^J W.A.No. 173 of 2026

5

\ \

by the writ Court,^{we do not feel persuaded to enhance the} maintenance amount^{at this stage.However, respondent Nos.5} and 6 undertake to^{pay the arrears of maintenance by t 5th Muy,} 2026, besides paying the^{monthly maintenanceamountby} 7,h day of the every following^{month. This maintenance} amount would continue^{for a period of nine (9) months from} the date o,f the order^{dated 06.01.2026 passed by the writ} Court. Thereafter,^{respondent Nos.5 and 6 should pay the}

enhanced maintenance^{amountof Rs.8,000/- to the appellants'} The relevant bank^{account details of the appellant parents are}

being indicated hereunder.

NameoftheBank	:StateBank ofIndia
NameoftheBranch	:ST.Mary'sRoad,^SonaArcade, Secunderabad.
SavingsAccount^No	:30283866121
Account Holder^Name	:K.Ganesh&K.ManikYakumari
IFSC	:SBINOO08779

\

I l. The instant Writ Appeat^{is disposed of in the aforesaid} manner. Needless to say, on^{failure to pay regular maintenance}

amount as directed by the^{learnedwrit Court, it wouldbe open}

HCJ (AKrS. J) & GMM. J W.A.No. 173 of 2026

6

r' {

to the appellants to take recourse to law. There shall be no

order as to costs.

I\tliscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closerl.

SD/. L.LAKSHMI^BABU PUTY REGISTRAR

,/TRUE COPY/

To

SECTION OFFICER

1. Commis:;ioner cum^{AppellateAuthority,} for Empowennent of Persons with Disabilities,^{Senior Citizens and} Persons Nalgonda^X Roads, [tlalakpet,^{Hyderabad- 36}

Collector and District^{Magistrate, Hyderabad District}

Assistant Director,^{Departmentfor Empowermentof Personswith Disabilities,} Senior 3itizens and^{TransgenderPersons Nalgonda X Roads, Malakpet,} Hyderabad - 36

Revenut: Divisional Officer,^{Secunderabad Division,Hyderabad District'}

One CC to SRI RAVI^{CHANDRA BEJJAFIAM,Advocate} [OPUC] 6. Two COs to ADDL. ADVOCATE^{GENERAL,High Court for the State of} Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUTI

One CC to SRI RAPOLU^{BHASKAR, Advocate} [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies

PSK.

TKS

4+-

t

I II i i f I i

,

HIGH COURT

DATEDT 0710412026

JUDGMEhIT WA.No.173 of 2026

1 HES f/r,
t
o t:t
," 'l
LJt 2 E ApB 2o26 a:.
*
t
TCH rI)

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

r r. II I

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 06.01.2026 passed by the learned Writ Court in W.P.No.22753 of 2025, which had modified the appellate authority's order and directed respondents 5 and 6 to pay Rs.6,000/- per month jointly to the appellants and take care of appellant No.2 (bedridden mother) while permitting their stay in the subject property.¶53
High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (learned Writ Court) · 06.01.2026
Prior proceeding
Appellants (parents) had filed an appeal under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007; respondent No.1 (Commissioner cum Appellate Authority) passed an order dated 22.07.2025 therein.¶53
Prior proceeding
Writ Petition No.22753 of 2025 challenged that appellate authority order; the learned Writ Court held that respondents 5 and 6 (son and daughter-in-law), having contributed for development of the subject property, cannot be denied the right to stay in it.¶54
Prior proceeding
The Writ Court accordingly modified the appellate authority's order, directing respondents 5 and 6 to pay Rs.6,000/- per month jointly to the appellants and take care of appellant No.2; if they failed, they would have no right to seek continuation in the subject property.¶54
Prior proceeding
Pending disposal of the writ appeal, I.A. No.1 of 2026 (petition under Section 151 CPC) prayed for suspension of the order passed by respondent No.1 vide Appeal No. 51/344/2025 dt. 22l1tt2125.¶24
Prior proceeding
When the matter was taken up on 12.02.2026, this Court recorded an interim order noting the appellants' grievance (verbal abuse, torture, obstruction to letting out the first and second floors), sought an undertaking from respondents 5 and 6, and listed the matter for 02.03.2026.¶51
Prior proceeding
Respondents 5 and 6 furnished separate affidavits-cum-undertakings undertaking not to indulge in verbal abuse, torture, or obstruction to letting out of the first and second floors, and to ensure peaceful stay of the appellant parents.¶64
Prior proceeding
The matter was adjourned to see whether the arrangement arrived at pursuant to the undertakings worked out, with both parties observing restraint; on the previous date the appellants' counsel reported the arrangement working smoothly, while requesting an increase in the maintenance amount.¶70