THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.22864 of 2025

ORAL ORDER:

Heard Mr.Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

2. Petitioner and respondent No.6 are sons of respondent No.7 - Senior Citizen. She has filed a petition under Section 4 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, the Act, 2007’) seeking maintenance against the petitioner and respondent No.6. Vide order dated 30.06.2025, respondent No.3 has passed order directing the petitioner and respondent No.6 to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each per month to respondent No.7 towards maintenance. Challenging the said order, petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. Mr.Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent No.3 did not receive the documents filed by the petitioner to show that respondent No.7, his mother, has sufficient means to take care of her welfare and to maintain herself. She has properties. The said aspects were not considered by respondent No.3. Therefore, on the said grounds the petitioner sought for setting aside the impugned order.

4. The impugned order is in terms of Section 4 of the Act, 2007. It is an appealable order. He has to prefer an appeal in terms of Section 16(1) of the Act, 2007 before the Appellate Authority.

5. There is no dispute with regard to the legal position that under the following three exceptional circumstances though an alternative remedy is available, the writ petition is maintainable. The said three circumstances are as follows:-

i. A breach of fundamental rights;

ii. A violation of the principles of natural justice;

iii. An excess of jurisdiction; or a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation.

6. The said principle was also laid down by the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Asst. Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Limited, Manu/SC/0801/2021 and also Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC Whereas, the present case, is not falling in any of the aforesaid three categories. Therefore, the petitioner herein cannot contend that though there is an alternative and efficacious remedy, the present writ petition is maintainable. There are several factual aspects which this Court cannot consider in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable.

7. In the light of the same, notice to respondent Nos.6 and 7 is dispensed with. This Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to prefer an appeal challenging the impugned proceedings dated 30.06.2025 passed by respondent

No.3, in terms of Section 16(1) of the Act, 2007 before Appellate Authority. Liberty is also granted to the petitioners to take all the grounds and contentions, which he has raised in the present Writ Petition, before the Appellate Authority, and it is for the Appellate Authority to consider the same. On filing of such appeal, Appellate Authority shall dispose of the same in accordance with law.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 4^th AUGUST, 2025.

Ynk