HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.9922 OF 2025

ORDER

Heard Sri K. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. G.Vijaya Kumari, learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Women Department and Child Welfare, appearing for 2^nd respondent, Mr.

M.Venkanna, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 9.

2. The petitioner is daughter-in-law of respondents 5 and 6, respondents 7 to 9 are daughters of respondents 5 and 6. Petitioner’s husband i.e. Yadagiri is no more.

3. Respondent No.5 has filed an application under th provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Seniors Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, ‘the Act’) before 3^rd respondent contending that her husband Sri Rudrakshi Sailu, died and therefore she was not in a position to maintain herself. She is not in a position to meet medical expenses. Therefore, she sought a direction to the petitioner herein, her daughter-in-law to meet medical expenses incurred by her.

4. Vide order dated 24.01.2025, 3^rd respondent allowed the said application and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to 5^th respondent towards medical expenses within ten days from the date of receipt of the said order, failing which patta in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.1.13 guntas in Sy.No.256/2 situated at Ibrahimet, Nidamanoor Mandal, Nalgonda District, will be cancelled. The petitioner herein did not prefer any appeal challenging the said order.

5. Thereafter, 4^th respondent has issued notice dated 10.02.2025 to the petitioner requesting her to appear on 11.02.2025, on which date, the petitioner appeared before 4^th respondent and informed him that she is ready to pay the said amount of Rs.5 Lakhs as ordered by 3^rd respondent vide order dated 24.01.2025. The said fact was informed to 5^th respondent. Even then, 5^th respondent did not appear before 4^th respondent for receiving the said amount. Therefore, 4^th respondent adjourned the enquiry to 11.02.2025 at 11.00 A.M. The said fact was also informed to 5^th respondent.

6. The petitioner appeared before 4^th respondent on 11.02.2025.

5^th respondent did not appear for enquiry on 11.02.2025. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted a letter dated 11.02.2025 to 4^th respondent stating that she is ready to pay the said amount. Despite intimating the said fact by 4^th respondent, 5^th respondent did not appear for the enquiry. 5^th respondent refused to receive the money. If 5^th respondent furnishes her bank account and passbook, the petitioner will deposit the said amount into the account of 5^th respondent in compliance with the order dated 24.01.2025 by 3^rd respondent. Therefore, he has closed the enquiry vide proceedings dated 11.02.2025.

7. Aggrieved by the said proceedings dated 11.02.2025 of 3^rd respondent, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 preferred an appeal under Section 16(1) of the Act before 2^nd respondent. Vide order dated 17.03.2025, 2^nd respondent directed the writ petitioner to pay the said amount of Rs.5 Lakhs by 15.03.2025 to 5^th respondent by depositing in her A/c. No.62275417089, State Bank of India, Halia (Anumula) Branch, IFSC Code No. SBIN0021245. If she fails to deposit an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs, capital punishment for six months would be imposed. 2^nd respondent further held that since the petitioner neglected 5^th respondent to provide necessary support to her, cancellation of the gift deed executed by 5^th respondent in favour of the petitioner is fully justified. Accordingly, an extent of one acre out of total extent is to be re-transferred and mutated the same back in the name of 5^th respondent. With the said directions, he has closed the said appeal.

8. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition contending that the impugned order dated 17.03.2025 is beyond the scope of Section 23 (1) of the Act. There is no consideration of notice dated 10.02.2025 of 3^rd respondent and order dated 11.02.2025 of 3^rd respondent. The petitioner has already deposited an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs in compliance with