IMPORTANT POINT: As per Section 4 r/w 23, a senior citizen or parent is entitled to seek maintenance. The ‘maintenance’ is defined under Section 2(b) which includes provision for food, clothing, residence and medical attendant and treatment. It can hardly be gainsaid that the concept of maintenance primarily means monetary assistance for the aforesaid counts of food, clothing, etc.

N.V. Anjaria, J.

1. The petitioners have filed this petition against order dated 30th October, 2015 passed by the fourth respondent herein-the Sub Divisional Magistrate, exercising his powers under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

2. Allowing Appeal No. 68 of 2015 of the second respondent herein, the Sub Divisional Magistrate directed the petitioners to hand over the possession of the house property described as B/1, Santoshnagar Society, Camp Road, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad to the second respondent from the petitioners herein. The Police Inspector of the Shahibaug Police Station was directed to carry out the order regarding handing over the possession.

3. Petitioner No. 1 happens to be the son, whereas petitioner No. 2 is a daughter-in-law of the second respondent-mother. The second respondent has two other sons and daughter staying in Ahmedabad only. It is the case of the petitioner that father of the petitioner died on 06th November, 2003 and the brothers have already taken their share from the property. The second respondent mother had been residing with the petitioners in the house and according to petitioners, they were taking care of the mother. It is stated in the petition that before the competent civil court, a civil suit has been instituted by the petitioners herein, in which the Court Commissioner's Report was put on record establishing residence and possession of the petitioners of the house in question being B/1, Santoshnagar Society, Camp Road, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad.

3.1 The second respondent-mother filed an application under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act before respondent No. 4 authority. In the said application filed under Section 4 of the Act, it was prayed against all the three sons including the petitioner No. 1 for giving maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- every month. From the copy of the application available on record, the case of the second respondent was inter alia that the two sons were settled by her and her husband-the father after marriage and that they have been staying separately. It was stated that since last forty years, she has been staying with the petitioner No. 1 who is her youngest son. It is the averment of the second respondent-applicant that after death of her husband in the year 2003, she was meted out harassment in various ways by the petitioners. According to the second respondent, the petitioners were not giving her money and though the house in question belongs to her, petitioner No. 1 started renovation without her permission and further stated that he had spent for the house, the same should transferred in his name. Allegations of umpteen kinds were averred in the application by the second respondent. It was pleaded that she should be given her house. According to the applicant-mother, she had gone to the house of her daughter at the time when the petitioners were undertaking renovation of the house in question as dispute about the renovation and other different disputes of serious nature had arisen. It may be stated that the petitioners has filed Civil Suit No. 1820 of 2015 before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad against the mother-the second respondent herein, the sister Kiranben and brother-in-law, arraigned as defendants in the Suit, wherein relief is prayed against the defendants from interfering with the repairing work of the house and for declaration that they had no right to obstruct and interfere.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioners Mr. D.V. Kansara inter alia submitted that the copy of the order dated 30th October, 2015 was served upon the petitioners on 04th November, 2015 only, the petitioners could not challenge the same before the Appellate Tribunal. As the petitioners could not arrange for funds, in the meantime the limitation period to prefer appeal expired, and the second respondent took away the possession of the house property where they were residing, with polic