IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7215 of 2008 Between: Pettem Kalavathi … Petitioner AND A.P. GENCO, rep., by its Managing Director, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Amarender Raju This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7215 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to withhold the terminal benefits of respondent No.3 to ensure that the monthly maintenance amount awarded by order dated 01.07.2005 passed in M.C.No.7 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Luxettipet be paid to the petitioner. Heard Sri K. Amarender Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In her affidavit, the petitioner stated that as respondent No.3, who is an employee of respondent Nos.1 and 2, neglected to maintain her, she filed M.C.No.7 of 2004 and the said proceedings were disposed of by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Luxettipet, by order dated 01.07.2005 by granting a monthly maintenance of Rs.1500/- to the petitioner apart from awarding costs of Rs.500/-. The petitioner averred that respondent No.3 is going to retire from service and she apprehends that after his retirement he may not continue to pay the maintenance amount. She pleaded that she approached respondent No.2 with a request to withhold the terminal benefits payable to respondent No.3 to ensure implementation of the abovementioned orders passed in M.C.No.7 of 2004. Having carefully considered the averments contained in the affidavit and the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the writ petition is wholly misconceived. The petitioner has not pleaded that respondent No.3 has been irregular in paying the maintenance amount so far or that there are any arrears payable to her towards the maintenance amount. The petitioner filed this writ petition on a mere apprehension that respondent No.3 may discontinue payment to her in future. The petitioner failed to produce any material in support of such apprehension. Even in such an event, it is always open to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate to seek enforcement of order dated 01.07.2005 by way of attachment of respondent No.3’s properties/pension. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.9479 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 08.04.2008 ES