SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(MP) 466

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR BENCH AT INDORE
SUBODH ABHYANKAR, SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH, JJ.
Sunil Kondla S/o Shri Mohanlal Kondla – Appellant
Versus
Competent Authority & Sub Divisional Officer – Respondent
Writ Appeal No.377 of 2021
Decided on : 26-07-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Bhuvan Deshmukh

The judgment emphasizes the importance of following due procedure of law, including impleading other liable parties and referring matters to conciliation as prescribed by the Act and Rules.

Headnote:

Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act - Maintenance of parents and senior citizens - S.4, S.5, S.6, S.8 of the Act of 2007 - Rules 9, 10, 11, 12 of the Rules of 2009

Fact of the Case:

The appellants, son and daughter-in-law of the respondents, filed a writ petition against an order passed under the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (the Act). The respondents, parents of the appellant, sought maintenance from them. The Writ Court dismissed the petition, holding the maintenance amount to be reasonable and observing that the petitioners were trying to bargain with their parents over property.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the procedure adopted by the Sub Divisional Officer did not satisfy due procedure of law. It noted that the appellants were not given sufficient opportunity to file a reply and that the Tribunal failed to follow the prescribed procedure for impleading other liable parties and referring the matter to conciliation. The Court also observed that the appellants should have pursued the appeal process instead of filing a writ petition.

Issues: Failure to follow due procedure of law, lack of opportunity for the appellants to present their case, and failure to consider alternative remedies available to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Tribunal failed to follow the prescribed procedure for impleading other liable parties and referring the matter to conciliation. It also noted that the appellants should have pursued the appeal process instead of filing a writ petition.

Final Decision: The order passed by the Writ Court was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal to proceed in accordance with the law.

ORDER :

Subodh Abhyankar, J.

This appeal under Section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyalayaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been preferred by the appellants (writ petitioners in Writ Petition No.19043/2020) against the order passed by the Writ Court in Writ Petition No.19043/2020 on 04.02.2021 (Annexure P/1) whereby the petitioners’ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was dismissed.

2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the petitioners being aggrieved of the order dated 30.09.2020, passed by the Competent Authority/Sub Divisional Officer, Malharganj, Indore in favour of respondents No.2 and 3 under the provisions of Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act of 2007’).

3. The facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellants No.1 and 2 (herein the petitioners) are the son and daughter-in-law of respondents No.2 and 3, who are the parents of petitioner No.1. The petitioners No.1 and 2 are residing separately from their parents who have also other siblings including one unmarried son, who is residing with the respondents and three married daughters. Apparently, the relationship between the petitioners and their parents is not cordial. Hence, as the respondents No.2 and 3 were finding it difficult to maintain themselves, an application under Section 14 of the Act of 2009 was filed by them before the Competent Authority/Sub Divisional Officer, Mahlarganj, Indore, District Indore (MP). A notice of the aforesaid application was also served on the petitioners.

4. The case of the petitioners is that the Competent Authority has passed the impugned order on 30.09.2020, without following due procedure of law and in violation of the principles of natural justice, without referring the parties to the Conciliation as provided u/s.6 (6) of the Act of 2009. It is also submitted that the appellant no.1’s other three sisters and a brother are also liable to pay the maintenance in equal 1/5th proportion, and otherwise also, the amount of maintenance of Rs.8,000/-(rupees eight thousand) is also on higher side, considering the fact that the petitioner No.1 is already repaying a bank loan of Rs.31,000/-(rupees thirty one thousand), apart from the School Fee of their children, which consumes most of his income, as he is earning an amount of Rs.40,000/-(forty thousand) per month only.

5. Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 / State of Madhya Pradesh has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the Competent Authority in passing the impugned order. Respondents no.2 and 3 who were the complainant before the Competent Authority, have remained absent despite service of notice on them.

6. Heard. On perusal of the record it is found that the learned Judge of the Writ Court has dismissed the petition in limine holding that the sum of Rs.4,000/-(rupees four thousand) per month to each of the parents of the petitioners cannot be said to be an excessive amount and it is a statutory as well as the moral duty of the petitioners to maintain respondents No.2 and 3. The Writ Court has also observed that the petitioners were also trying to bargain with their parents in respect of their immoveable property, that if they (parents) also give them their share in the property, they (petitioners) would maintain them, but such bargaining cannot be allowed with the parents. It is also held that the procedure under the Act is summary in nature and there was no requirement to allow the petitioners to cross-examine respondents No.2 and 3.

7. Heard. On perused of the record and the provisions of the Act of 2007 and the Rules made thereunder, we are afraid we are unable to concur with the findings recorded by the writ court for the reasons assigned herein below. Before we embark upon the facts, it is necess

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top