1. This petition is one disquieting instance where a son has audaciously suggested that his parents should move to and stay in old-age home instead of claiming order of care, protection and maintenance. In present petition, the petitioner, a senior citizen, aged about 75 years, has prayed, inter-alia, that:

13(B) To issue a writ of certiorari o a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 18.12.2010 passed by the Learned District Magistrate, Patan vide order no. MAJ/Appeal Case No.3811 to 3815 of 2010 confirming the order dated 17.8.2010 passed by the Learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patan and allow the said application and direct the respondent no.1 to pay Rs.5000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of application till realisation and continue to pay the same regularly every month.

13(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, to direct the respondent no.1 to pay the maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of application till realisation and continue to pay the same regularly every month.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 17.8.2010 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as the competent authority) in maintenance application which was preferred by present applicant under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby the competent authority rejected the said application. The petitioner is also aggrieved by order dated 18.12.2010 whereby the District Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Authority) rejected the appeal preferred by present petitioner against the said order dated 17.8.2010.

3. Facts:

3.1 So far as the relevant facts involved in present case are concerned, it appears from the record that the petitioner herein preferred an application under the provisions of the Act and claimed, inter-alia, that the respondent may be directed to provide proper maintenance, care and protection as contemplated under the Act. The application was directed against petitioner s son and the petitioner alleged therein, inter-alia, that he stays at village Balisana with his wife and both of them do not keep good health. The petitioner-applicant also asserted in the application that he suffers from heart ailment and has been diognised with heavy artery blockage upto 60% to 80% and he also suffers from prostate problem while his wife, due to advanced age, does not keep in good health and due to weakness, it is difficult for her to do the household work, particularly the cooking and washing work and other daily chores. In the application, the petitioner-applicant also claimed that his two sons are not staying with him and his wife but are staying separate and while the elder son who is a practicing advocate, does take some care, the younger son who is working as Talati-cum-Mantri, and his wife completely ignore them and do not take any care. The petitioner-applicant also alleged that the opponent in the application, i.e. his younger son does not help him and his wife in any manner and he also does not provide for their maintenance.

3.2 The competent authority after registering the application completed the formalities and procedure prescribed under the Act for deciding the application and issued process. The authority also visited the residence of the petitioner-applicant and his sons and statements were recorded and reply from the opponent was also called for.

3.3 The opponent son opposed the application preferred by his father (i.e. present petitioner) and while stating facts in defence of his conduct, he made several allegations against his parents.

3.4 Besides other allegations, the opponent s son, who works as Talati-cum-Mantri, also opposed the application on the ground that at meagre charge of about Rs.300/- per month, the applicant, i.e. his fat