Andhra Pradesh High Court Weekly Digest: June 23 – June 29, 2025

Citations: [2025 LiveLaw (AP) 119 – 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 123]Nominal Index:VISWANATHAN KRISHNA MURTHY v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 119Sankarappa v. APSPDCL Chairman M D Tirupati 2 and Others: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 120Kalimela Kiran Kumar v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 121Killo Subbarao and Others v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 122Sri Aadi Varahi Shakti Temple Trust and Others v. The State Of Ap and Others: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 123Judgments/Final OrdersTransgender Woman In Heterosexual Marriage Can File Complaint Against Husband, In-Laws U/S 498A IPC: Andhra Pradesh High CourtCase Number: Criminal Petition No.6783/2022Case Title: VISWANATHAN KRISHNA MURTHY v STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 119The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a transgender woman in heterosexual marriage can file a complaint against her husband and in-laws under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa emphasized that a transgender woman, identifying as a female and living in a marital relationship with a man, cannot be excluded from the protection of laws meant to safeguard women from dowry-related harassment and cruelty."A transwoman in a heterosexual relationship, cannot be deprived of her right to lodge a complaint against her husband or the relatives of her husband," it observed.AP High Court Rejects Govt Employee's Plea To Change Date Of Birth Ahead Of Superannuation, Points He Accepted Seniority Based On ItCase Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 41332/2016Case Title: Sankarappa v. APSPDCL Chairman M D Tirupati 2 and OthersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 120The Andhra Pradesh High Court has rejected the plea of a retired employee of the Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (APSPDCL), who sought alteration in his Date of Birth (DOB) in the official service records, after having received all promotions and service benefits based on the same date.In this regard, Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam observed,“Petitioner at the fag end of his career when his superannuation was approaching, preferred representations to the respondent authorities, by simply blaming the respondents as if his Date of Birth had been changed. But, the petitioner is not able to substantiate his assertion regarding the alleged alteration of the entry of the Date of Birth in the service Record. In the absence of the prerequisite foundational facts regarding his case, it is not apt for this Court to go into an arena which is purely a disputed question of fact, while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also evident from the record that, did not raise any objection with respect to the Seniority List prepared by the respondents' corporation even today. But for the sake of extension of his services after 28 years of service from the date of joining, he is disputing his date of birth in the service register.”Commenting that the case comes within the ambit of doctrine of 'Approbate and Reprobate', the Court added,“The petitioner himself produced his Educational Certificate issued by the concerned District Education Officer on his own volition, in which his Date of Birth is stated as 10.11.1958, which correlates with the version of the respondents Corporation. But, on the fag end of his career, he has taken the plea that is date of birth is 25.08.1961, so as to extend his service and receive its consequential benefits. Thus, the case of the petitioner directly comes under the ambit of 'Approbate and Reprobate', which in general words means one cannot take advantage of one part while rejecting the rest. In other words, a person cannot be allowed to have the advantage of a document while challenging the same. In such an event, the petitioner either has to affirm or disaffirm the said transaction.”'Woke Up From Deep Slumber': AP High Court Bars Wakf Tribunal From Hearing Land Dispute Decided By Civil Court 45 Years AgoCase Number: WP No. 2618 of 2024Case Title: Kalimela Kiran Kumar v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and OthersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (AP) 121The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed a man's plea against the decision of the Waqf Tribunal which had adjudicated on a suit concerning a disputed land, despite the fact that a civil court had decided the matter 45 years ago giving a finding that the disputed property is not a waqf property.The court thus said that the Waqf Tribunal does not have the power to adjudicate any case which is the subject-matter of a suit filed before the civil court before the commencement of the Waqf Act, or any appeal/decree arising out of such a suit.Reiterating that the Tribunal cannot entertain a suit seeking declaration of title over the land which was already adjudicated upon by a competent Civil Court, Justice Subba Reddy Satti held,“When a competent Civil Court recorded a finding in an earlier suit that the property does not belong to the wakf institution, the present suit filed by...

Andhra Pradesh High Court Weekly Digest: June 23 – June 29, 2025

Saahas Arora

Tags