M.N. Bhandari, J.

By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 13.03.2015.

2. The non-petitioner filed an application to seek maintenance by invoking the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (for short "the Act of 2007"). The application was filed by the mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law. It has been challenged in reference to Section 4 of the Act of 2007. The application for maintenance is not maintainable against the daughter-in-law.

3. To appreciate the argument aforesaid, Section 4 of the Act of 2007 is perused and, otherwise, quoted hereunder for ready reference:-

"Section 4 -Maintenance of parents and senior citizens

(1) A senior citizen including parent who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or out of the property owned by him, shall be entitled to make an application under section 5 in case of--

(i) parent or grand-parent, against one or more of his children not being a minor;

(ii) a childless senior citizen, against such of his relative referred to in clause (g) of section 2.

(2) The obligation of the children or relative, as the case may be, to maintain a senior citizen extends to the needs of such citizen so that senior citizen may lead a normal life.

(3) The obligation of the children to maintain his or her parent extends to the needs of such parent either father or mother or both, as the case may be, so that such parent may lead a normal life.

(4) Any person being a relative of a senior citizen and having sufficient means shall maintain such senior citizen provided he is in possession of the property of such senior citizen or he would inherit the property of such senior citizen:

Provided that where more than one relatives are entitled to inherit the property of a senior citizen, the maintenance shall be payable by such relative in the proportion in which they would inherit his property."

4. The perusal of Section 4(1) shows that parents or the grand parents can maintain the application against one or more of his children, not being minor. The petitioner cannot be considered to be child of the non-petitioner. Sub-clause 2 provides an application against relative if senior citizen is childless, which is not the case in hand.

5. In view of the above, the application against the petitioner was not maintainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. It would, however, not preclude the non-petitioner to seek appropriate remedy against the petitioner if she has been given compassionate appointment on the death of non-petitioner's son and if she is not maintaining her.

6. With the aforesaid, writ petition is disposed of.