Back
2018 Supreme(All) 1946
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Pankaj Mithal, Shashi Kant, JJ.
Kanak Bhushan Srivastava and Another – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 28250 of 2018
Decided On : 23-08-2018
For the Petitioner: Surendra Kumar, Anil Kumar Srivastava
For the Respondent: Hanuman Prasad Mishra
The main legal point established is that the appeal rights under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 are limited to senior citizens or parents, and do not extend to other individuals such as their sons.
Headnote:
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 - Appeal Rights of Sons - The court held that the sons of the senior citizen have no right to appeal against the order of the Tribunal under Section 16 of the Act, as this power has only been conferred upon senior citizens or parents. Therefore, the only remedy for the sons is to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Court against the impugned order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, sons of the senior citizen, filed a petition against the order directing them to vacate their father's house under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sons have no right to appeal under Section 16 of the Act and the only remedy available to them is to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Court against the impugned order.
Issues: The main issue was the appeal rights of the sons under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 16 of the Act and held that the power to appeal has only been conferred upon senior citizens or parents, and not upon any other person, including the sons.
Final Decision: The court allowed the respondent to file a counter affidavit and granted two weeks to the petitioners to file a rejoinder affidavit, with the case to be listed for admission/final hearing after the specified period.
1. Petitioners have preferred this petition against the order dated 28.5.2018 passed by Up Zila Adhikari, Sadar, District Farrukhabad as a Maintenance Officer under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 2007') directing the petitioners to vacate the house of their father within a period of one month.
2. Learned Standing Counsel submits that against the aforesaid order, the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal under Section 16 of the Act, 2007.
3. The order impugned is an order passed by the Tribunal has been created under Section 15 of the Act, 2007 creates an Appellate Tribunal. Section 16 provides for an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal by the Senior Citizen or a parent as the case may be who is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal but this power has not been conferred upon any other person other than senior citizen or a parent.
4. In view of above, the petitioners who are sons of the senior citizen have no right to appeal. Accordingly, they have no other remedy except to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court against the aforesaid order.
5. On merits, the submission of learned counsel for petitioners is that house in dispute is not the exclusive property of the respondent No.3, rather it is the property of their grand mother who has been turned out of the house by respondent No. 3 and now he is not allowing the petitioners also to live therein.
6. Shri Hanuman Prashad Mishra, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits that the petitioners have already been evicted from the house in dispute pursuant to the order.
7. In view of above, he may file counter affidavit to the petition within a period of three weeks. Two weeks thereafter are allowed to the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavit.
8. List after expiry of the above period for admission/final hearing.
