Telangana High Court to Examine Judicial Power of Collectors

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea challenging Rule 21(3) of the Telangana Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011, which enables parents or senior citizens to file a complaint for maintenance if not adequately supported. The panel comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was dealing with a petition filed by R. Srinivas, against whom his father had initiated proceedings before the district collector for his eviction. The petitioner referred to multiple rulings of the apex court and contended that by the creation of a tribunal presided by the district collector, an essential judicial function was being conferred upon the official, which was to be exercised by a judge, by a regular court or by a tribunal having a judicial member. The petitioner contended that the collector, being primarily an executive officer, lacked judicial training and was not equipped to deal with the procedural and substantive complexities inherent in eviction proceedings. The panel directed the state to file its response within four weeks.

Routine quarrels not ground for divorce: HC

A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court reiterated that ordinary marital discord and trivial quarrels do not amount to mental cruelty warranting divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao was hearing an appeal filed by a husband challenging the order of the Family Court, which dismissed his petition for dissolution of marriage. The appellant alleged that after the birth of their son in 2013, his wife became verbally abusive, used offensive language and repeatedly complained about his income and career, causing him mental distress and forcing him to leave the matrimonial home in October 2019. The respondent's wife denied the allegations, contending that the appellant had been involved in an extramarital relationship with a colleague since 2018 and had fabricated the cruelty claims to justify seeking divorce. She stated that she continued to live in the matrimonial home with their child and wished to preserve the marriage. After reviewing the evidence, the panel found that the husband had failed to substantiate his allegations of cruelty. The panel noted that the alleged abusive words were not mentioned in the original petition and that the testimonies of his parents contained improvements beyond the pleadings. The panel observed that the husband’s admissions in cross-examination, acknowledging his presence with the alleged colleague in public, lent credence to the wife’s version. Speaking for the panel, Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that the burden lay on the petitioner to prove conduct so severe that continued cohabitation became impossible, which the appellant failed to do. Concluding that the marriage did not irretrievably break down and that the husband voluntarily left the matrimonial home, the panel affirmed the Family Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal, holding that no interference was warranted.

HC refuses relief to bus stand vendor

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ plea filed by a licensed stall owner at the TGSRTC bus stand whose license was cancelled for unauthorised sub-letting. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by G. Venkat, who was granted a licence to operate a popcorn stall at the Jangaon bus depot from August 2024 to August 2029 for a monthly fee of Rs 1,05,006. The petitioner was challenging showcause notices issued by the Telangana Road Transport Corporation (TGSRTC) proposing termination of his licence for alleged sub-letting. The petitioner alleged that rival stall owners had fabricated documents to oust him and that the corporation was proceeding to terminate his license despite his explanation of the notices. In response, the TGSRTC contended that the petitioner had entered into a partnership agreement, effectively sub-letting the stall, which was expressly prohibited under the licence terms. It was stated that the notices were issued in accordance with the law and that his replies would be duly considered before taking any decision. The judge observed that the court should not interfere at the stage of showcause notices unless issued without jurisdiction and held that such notices were part of the due legal process ensuring observance of the principles of natural justice.

Consortium benefits non-transferable, rules HC

Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao of the Telangana High Court held that consortium benefits were personal and could not be inherited by legal representatives of deceased persons. However, the judge enhanced the compensation payable to the family of a driver who died in a road accident at Godavarikhani from Rs 7.95 lakh to Rs 13.81 lakh. The judge was hearing a motor accident civil miscellaneous appeal filed by G. Radha and four others, the legal heirs of the deceased, who died after being hit by a rashly driven motorcycle in 2012. The deceased, then aged 41, was employed as a driver for Somarapu Satyanarayana, MLA, earning about Rs 10,000 per month. The claimants sought Rs 30 lakh under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but the tribunal awarded Rs 7,95,750 with 6 per cent interest. The judge found that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) undervalued the deceased’s income despite evidence of his employment and also failed to award consortium to all eligible dependents. Observing that the monthly income was wrongly fixed at Rs 4,500, the judge refixed it appropriately and enhanced the interest rate from 6 per cent to 9 per cent per annum. The appeal was partly allowed with modification of the tribunal’s award.