Back
2026 Supreme(AP) 176
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.
Alluri Madhusudhana Venkata Chalapathi Raju S/o Dr. Krishnam Raju – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 10671 of 2024
Decided On : 31-01-2026
For the Appellant : K.K. Durga Prasad
The appellate authority must dispose of appeals filed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 within 30 days, providing parties an opportunity to be heard.
Headnote:(A) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Section 16 - Writ filed under Article 226 - Petition to declare the inaction of the appellate authority as illegal and arbitrary - Court held that the authority is under statutory obligation to dispose of the appeal within 30 days after providing a hearing opportunity. (Paras 1, 7)
(B) Appeal - Right of senior citizen to file appeal - The term 'senior citizen' includes the petitioner, who is entitled to appeal against the order passed by the said authority. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a senior citizen, filed an appeal under Section 16 of the Act challenging the inaction of the appellate authority, which failed to consider the appeal after it was filed in April 2024.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the authority must consider and resolve the appeal within 30 days of receiving the order copy, emphasizing the statutory duty of the authority.
Issues: The main issues centered around whether the petitioner, as a senior citizen, has the right to appeal under the Act, and the obligation of the appellate authority to decide the appeal timely.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that Section 16(6) specifies a time frame for the appellate authority to act on appeals, thereby ensuring a quick resolution for senior citizens facing such determinations.
Result: Writ Petition allowed; the appellate authority directed to dispose of the appeal within 30 days.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner entitled to appeal as senior citizen. (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court mandates timely resolution of appeal. (Para 2 , 7) |
| 3. interpretation of section 16 concerning appeal eligibility. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. writ petition disposed with directions. (Para 8) |
ORDER :
1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:-
“to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in keep it pending neither numbered nor returned the statutory appeal filed by the Petitioner u/s 16 of the MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT , 2007 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently directing the 2nd respondent to entertain the statutory appeal filed by the Petitioner as per procedure established under Law and pass other order or orders...”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel for respondent No.4.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 16 of the MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT , 2007 (herein after referred as ‘Act’) assailing the order dated 11.03.2024 passed by respondent No.3. Even though the appeal is filed in the month of April, 2024, but for one reason or the other the appellate authority i.e., 2nd respondent herein neither considered the appeal nor disposed of the same on merits by providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the petitioner is son of respondent No.4, but the petitioner is aged about 64 years even at the time of institution of original proceedings before the 3rd respondent. The petitioner is also a senior citizen. Section 16 of the Act, clearly and categorically states that an appeal can be filed against the order of the 3rd respondent by any senior citizen or parent. Since, the petitioner being senior citizen as per the section 2(h) of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to file appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that the object of the legislature while enacting Section16 is to provide appeal to the parents only even though it refers the word senior citizen, it to be construed who instituted the petition for want of maintenance against their kith and kin, they only entitled to file appeal.
6. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the appeal was numbered as Appeal No. 11 of 2023 on the file of the 2nd respondent, but the same is pending for consideration.
7. Heard the learned counsels representing all the parties and perused the material placed on record. It is observed that in view of the Section 16 (6) of the Act, 2007, the appellate authority is under statutory obligation to dispose of the appeal, if any, within a period of 30 days after providing opportunity of hearing to the appellant and respondent therein. But in the instant case, the appeal is pending since 2024. As such, this court is of the considered view, the present Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the 2nd respondent herein to consider and dispose of the appeal after providing opportunity of hearing to parties concerned, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.
8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
