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

2025 Supreme(MP) 508

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
VIVEK RUSIA, BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI, JJ.
Shanti Bai Jarwal – Appellant 
Versus
Smt. Manju Kunare And Others –Respondent 
Writ Petition No. 12 of 2025
Decided On : 17-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar along with Ms. Prerna Dubey, learned counsel
For the Respondents:Shri Vivek Sharan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Nitendra Vajpayee & Ms. Rajni Vajpayee, learned counsel, Shri Anand Soni, learned Additional Advocate General along with Shri Anirudh Malpani, learned Government Adv., Shri Romesh Dave, learned Deputy Solicitor General.

Headnote:

(1) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 -- S. 16 -- M. P. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules, 2009 -- R. 15 -- word “aggrieved” used in R. 15 -- the same word is used in S. 16(1) of Act which says that "any senior citizen or parent, as the case may be, aggrieved by an order" -- therefore, word “aggrieved” in R. 15 is only for appeal to be filed by senior citizen or parent, not by any person.2025(1)JLJ 474 = 2025 SCC Online SC 2, (2022) 5 SCC 1 and 2022 SCC Online SC 1684 followed. [Para A-19]

(2) Interpretation of Statute -- rules made under Act cannot give a new right or an expansion of right more than given in the parent Act -- rule has to be read within scope of Act. [Para A-20]

(3) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 -- Ss. 16 and 32 -- no power has been given to State Government to frame rule for giving right of appeal which has not been given by Parliament under the Act. [Para A-20]

(4) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 -- S. 16 -- right to appeal -- language of S. 16(1) has to be read as it is without any addition or subtraction -- entire Act has been brought into force only for welfare of senior citizens -- therefore, right to approach Tribunal as well as Appellate Tribunal has been given to them only -- held -- appeal u/s. 16 is maintainable only at instance of senior citizen or parent, not at instance of any aggrieved person. AIR 2014 P&H 121 dissented from. W. P. No. 9078 of 2022 decided on 14.7.2023 overruled. W. A. No. 254 of 2024 (Kar.), W. P. No. 7917 of 2020 decided on 23.1.2025, W. P. No. 18083 of 2022 decided on 18.4.2023, W. A. No. 655 of 2023 decided on 10.1.2024, 2021 SCC Online Mad. 746, 2022 SCC Online MP 3312, 2025 SCC Online MP 786, (1984) 3 SCC 161, (1987) 2 SCC 165, (1983) 1 SCC 305, (1981) 1 SCC 608, (1997) 2 SCC 83, (1996) 4 SCC 37, AIR 1952 SC 75 = (1952) 1 SCC 1, AIR 1955 SC 191, (2009) 10 SCC 531, (2010) 4 SCC 772, (2010) 10 SCC 744, 2021(1) JLJ 376 = (2021) 15 SCC 730, W. P. (MD) No. 2512 of 2025 (Madurai), (1987) 2 SCC 278, (1984) 1 SCC 588, AIR 1978 SC 548, AIR 2004 SC 3946, (2005) 7 SCC 484, (2002) 3 SCC 533, (2002) 4 SCC 297, (2003) 6 SCC 659, (2003) 8 SCC 289, (2004) 5 SCC 427, (2016) 9 SCC 647, (2015) 9 SCC 209, (1979) 2 SCC 468, (2024) 8 SCC 473, (2013) 8 SCC 789, (2003) SCC Online SC 710, (2005) 7 SCC 484, (2007) 6 SCC 276, (2021)17 SCC 451, (1858) XI Moore PC 347, (2008) 4 SCC 755, (2011)11 SCC 334, (2016) 3 SCC 619, (2019) 2 SCC 752, Writ-C No. 21188 of 2021 decided on 18.5.2022 (All.), W. P. No. 36 of 2023 (Bom.), 2024 SCC Online Bom. 1690, W.P. No. 2895 of 2021 (Del.) and (1987) 1 SCC 424 referred to. [Paras A-21 & C-2]

(5) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 -- S. 16 -- scope of power under Art. 226 -- remedy of writ petition under Art. 226 is always available to any citizen of this country to challenge the order of a statutory authority, quasi-judicial authority, tribunal, even a civil Court, etc. -- if right of appeal is not given to children or relatives u/s. 16 of Act, they are not remediless. [Para A-24]

¼1½ ekrk&firk vkSj ofj"B ukxfjdksa dk Hkj.kiks"k.k rFkk dY;k.k vfèkfu;e] 2007 & /kkjk 16 & e/; çns'k ekrk&firk vkSj ofj"B ukxfjdksa dk Hkj.kiks"k.k rFkk dY;k.k fu;e] 2009 & fuŒ 15 & fuŒ 15 esa ç;qä 'kCn ^^O;fFkr** & ;gh 'kCn vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 16¼1½ esa ç;qä gS] ftlesa dgk x;k gS ^^fdlh vkns'k }kjk O;fFkr] ;FkkfLFkfr] dksbZ ofj"B ukxfjd ;k dksbZ ekrk&firk & vr% fuŒ 15 esa ^^O;fFkr** 'kCn dsoy ofj"B ukxfjd ;k ekrk&firk }kjk çLrqr dh xbZ vihy ds fy, gS] fdlh Hkh O;fä }kjk ughaA 2025 ¼1½ ts,yts 474 % 2025 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 2] ¼2022½ 5 ,llhlh 1 rFkk 2022 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 1684 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk ,&19½
¼2½ fof/k dk fuoZpu & vf/kfu;e ds v/khu cuk, x, fu;e dksbZ u;k vfèkdkj vFkok ewy vf/kfu;e esa fn, x, vf/kdkj ls vf/kd O;kid vf/kdkj ugha ns ldrs & fu;e dks vf/kfu;e dh O;kfIr ds Hkhrj iढ+k tkuk gksrk gSA ¼iSjk ,&20½
¼3½ ekrk&firk vkSj ofj"B ukxfjdksa dk Hkj.kiks"k.k rFkk dY;k.k vfèkfu;e] 2007 & /kkjk 16 rFkk 32 & vihy dk tks vf/kdkj laln }kjk vfèkfu;e ds v/khu ugha fn;k x;k og nsus ds fy, fu;e fojfpr djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj jkT; ljdkj dks ugha fn;k x;k gSA ¼iSjk ,&20½
¼4½ ekrk&firk vkSj ofj"B ukxfjdksa dk Hkj.kiks"k.k rFkk dY;k.k vfèkfu;e] 2007 & /kkjk 16 & vihy djus dk vf/kdkj & /kkjk 16¼1½ dh Hkk"kk dks tSlk&dk&rSlk] fcuk dqN tksM+s ;k ?kVk,] iढ+k tkuk gksrk gS & lewpk vf/kfu;e dsoy ofj"B ukxfjdksa ds dY;k.k ds fy, ço`Ùk fd;k x;k gS & vr% vf/kdj.k ds lkFk gh vihy vf/kdj.k tkus dk vf/kdkj dsoy mUgsa fn;k x;k gS & vfHkfuèkkZfjr & /kkjk 16 ds v/khu vihy ofj"B ukxfjd ;k ekrk&firk }kjk fd, tkus ij gh pyus ;ksX; gS] fdlh Hkh O;fFkr O;fä }kjk fd, tkus ij ughaA ,vkbvkj 2014 iaŒ ,oa gfjŒ 121 folEerA fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 9078 lu~ 2022 fu.khZr fnukad 14-7-2023 myVk x;kA fjV vihy Øekad 254 lu~ 2024 ¼dukZŒ½ fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 7917 lu~ 2020 fu.khZr fnukad 23-1-2025] fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 18083 lu~ 2022 fu.khZr fnukad 18-4-2023] fjV vihy Øekad 655 lu~ 2023 fu.khZr fnukad 10-1-2024- 2021 ,llhlh v‚uykbu eækl 746] 2022 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,eih 3312] 2025 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,eih 786] ¼1984½ 3 ,llhlh 161] ¼1987½ 2 ,llhlh 165] ¼1983½ 1 ,llhlh 305] ¼1981½ 1 ,llhlh 608] ¼1997½ 2 ,llhlh 83] ¼1996½ 4 ,llhlh 37] ,vkbvkj 1952 ,llh 75 % ¼1952½ 1 ,llhlh 1] ,vkbvkj 1955 ,llh 191] ¼2009½ 10 ,llhlh 531] ¼2010½ 4 ,llhlh 772] ¼2010½ 10 ,llhlh 744] 2021 ¼1½ ts,ys 376 % ¼2021½ 15 ,llhlh 730] fjV ;kfpdk ¼,eMh½ Øekad 2512 lu~ 2025 ¼enqjS½] ¼1987½ 2 ,llhlh 278] ¼1984½ 1 ,llhlh 588] ,vkbvkj 1978 ,llh 548] ,vkbvkj 2004 ,llh 3946] ¼2005½ 7 ,llhlh 484] ¼2002½ 3 ,llhlh 533] ¼2002½ 4 ,llhlh 297] ¼2003½ 6 ,llhlh 659] ¼2003½ 8 ,llhlh 289] ¼2004½ 5 ,llhlh 427] ¼2016½ 9 ,llhlh 647] ¼2015½ 9 ,llhlh 209] ¼1979½ 2 ,llhlh 468] ¼2024½ 8 ,llhlh 473] ¼2013½ 8 ,llhlh 789] ¼2003½ ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 710] ¼2005½ 7 ,llhlh 484] ¼2007½ 6 ,llhlh 276] ¼2021½ 17 ,llhlh 451] ¼1858½ ihlh 347] ¼2008½ 4 ,llhlh 755] ¼2011½ 11 ,llhlh 334] ¼2016½ 3 ,llhlh 619] ¼2019½ 2 ,llhlh 752] fjVŒ lh Øekad 21188 lu~ 2021 fu.khZr fnukad 18-5-2022 ¼bykŒ½ fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 36 lu~ 2023 ¼cacbZ½] 2024 ,llhlh v‚uykbu cacbZ 1690] fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 2895 lu~ 2021 ¼fnYyh½ rFkk ¼1987½ 1 ,llhlh 424 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk ,&21 ,oa lh&2½
¼5½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & ekrk&firk vkSj ofj"B ukxfjdksa dk Hkj.kiks"k.k rFkk dY;k.k vf/kfu;e] 2007 & /kkjk 16 & vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu 'kfä dh O;kfIr & dkuwuh çkf/kdkjh] U;kf;ddYi çkf/kdkjh] vf/kdj.k] ;g‚a rd fd flfoy U;k;ky; vkfn ds Hkh vkns'k ij vk{ksi djus ds fy, vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu fjV ;kfpdk dk mipkj bl ns'k ds fdlh Hkh ukxfjd dks lnSo miyC/k gS & vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 16 ds v/khu larkuksa ;k ukrsnkjksa dks vihy dk vf/kdkj ugha fn;k x;k rks og fu:ik; ughaA ¼iSjk ,&24½

ORDER :

Vivek Rusia, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, a senior citizen aged about 89 years, widow of Late Suvalal Jarwal, residing at House No. 304, Ward No. 24, Sheelnath Camp, Kulkarni ka Bhatta, Indore.

FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS:-

F-2. The petitioner, who is a senior citizen as well as a parent, is assailing the legality, propriety and jurisdictional competence of the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Additional Collector, Indore / respondent No. 3, whereby the said order, the appellate authority has allowed an appeal filed by Smt. Manju Kunare / respondent No. 1 ( daughter) under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Senior Citizens Act,2007) and thereby set aside the order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Malharganj / respondent No.4 under Rule 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the M.P. Senior Citizen Rules, 2009).

F-3. This writ petition came before the Division Bench by way of reference to answer the following question of law:-

''Whether an appeal under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is maintainable only at the instance of any senior citizen or a parent, or it is maintainable at the instance of any aggrieved person?''

F-4. The petitioner asserts that she is the lawful owner and possessor of the aforesaid house property, having valid title documents in her name. She has been residing in the said house continuously for the past forty-nine years along with her family members. It is the specific case of the petitioner that on 12.11.2022, one PremchandKunare and his wife, Smt. Manju Kunare /respondent no. 1 visited the subject property and threatened the petitioner and her family members to vacate the premises within three days, failing which they would be forcibly removed. The petitioner approached the Police Station, Pardesipura, Indore, for lodging a complaint, but the police authorities declined to register the same.

F-5. Again, on the night of 14.11.2022 at about 10:12 p.m., the respondent no. 1 and her husband entered the premises, abused the petitioner in public, physically assaulted her and her family members and thereafter forcibly ousted the petitioner from the house. They also allegedly threatened the petitioner not to approach any authority. Being thus dispossessed, the petitioner was compelled to reside elsewhere despite having no alternative accommodation. The petitioner then submitted a detailed representation dated 05.04.2023 before the Collector, Indore/respondent no. 2 in Jan Sunvai instead of invoking provision of Rule 19 of the M.P. Senior Citizen Rules, 2009 under which it is a duty of Sub Divisional Officer to ensure that the life and property of senior citizens within the district are protected and that they can live with security and dignity. No action was, however, taken on her representation.

F-6. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 10793 of 2023, which was disposed of on 07 July 2023 with a direction to the Collector to decide the representation of the petitioner within one month after granting due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. Pursuant to the said direction, the matter was taken up by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Malharganj, Indore /respondent No. 4, who afforded an opportunity of hearing to both sides and considered what came on the material on record. The respondent No. 4 by a detailed order dated 23.09. 2024 allowed the application of the petitioner under Rule 19 of the M.P. Senior Citizen Rules, 2009 and directed respondent No. 1 to vacate the subject property and hand over peaceful possession to the petitioner within thirty days.

F-7. Aggrieved by the said order dated 23.09.2024, respondent No. 1 preferred an

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