Writ Petition No.7613/2020

:: 1 ::

j

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.7613 OF 2020

Kailas s/o Gulabdas Bhatia

… PETITIONER

VERSUS

Smt. Kalawati Gulabdas Bhatia

… RESPONDENT

.......

Shri Uday S. Malte, Advocate for petitioner

Shri S.S. Bora, Advocate for respondent (appointed)

.......

CORAM :

R. G. AVACHAT, J.

DATE :

17th FEBRUARY, 2021

O R D E R :

The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order

passed by the appellate authority on 18/9/2020 under the

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act,

2007 (for short the Act).

2.

The respondent is the mother of the petitioner.

She filed an application for maintenance under Section 4 of

the Act before the Maintenance Tribunal constituted under

Section 7 of the Act. It appears that, the said application was

disposed of by the Tribunal as withdrawn, vide its order dated

Writ Petition No.7613/2020

:: 2 ::

1/8/2019. The respondent thereafter preferred the appeal

before the Appellate Tribunal on 6/7/2020. The appellate

Tribunal/ District Magistrate allowed the appeal with a

direction to the petitioner to pay the respondent Rs.10,000/-

per month for her maintenance w.e.f. 19/7/2020. The

Appellate Tribunal further directed the petitioner to allow the

respondent to reside in the residential house, being C.T.S.

No.345. The Police Inspector, Erandol and Social Welfare

Officer, Jalgaon were directed by the appellate Tribunal to see

that the respondent is residing in the residential house C.T.S.

No.345. They were further directed to deal with the petitioner

in accordance with law if he harassed the respondent. This

order is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

3.

Shri Uday S. Malte, learned counsel for the

petitioner would submit that, the population of Erandol town

is not more than 35000. There is only one Court of the rank

of Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First

Class. The petitioner is an Advocate by profession. The

petitioner’s income from the legal profession is very meagre.

He has no other source of income. His wife and two children

are dependent on the petitioner. The respondent has one

more son. He is gainfully employed. A plot admeasuring

Writ Petition No.7613/2020

:: 3 ::

10000 sq.ft. Is in the name of the respondent. The father of

the petitioner would run a saw mill on the said plot. The

petitioner has given a consent to transfer the saw mill licence

to the name of the respondent. A sum of Rs.1000/- per

month is received by the respondent under the Scheme –

Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Yojana. Besides, a sum of Rs.2250/-

per month is received by the respondent from the Community

Trust – Seth Gokuldas Tejpal Trust, Mumbai. During the

lockdown imposed due to Pandemic Covid-19, the petitioner

has not been getting any income even to make his both the

ends meet. According to the learned counsel, the respondent

is quarrelsome. She has on her own started residing

separately. The petitioner’s younger brother resides with the

respondent.

They have sufficient income for their

maintenance. According to learned counsel, without giving

the petitioner an opportunity of leading evidence in support of

his case, the appellate Tribunal passed the impugned order.

He, therefore, urged for setting it aside.

4.

Mr. Satyajeet S. Bora, learned counsel readily

agreed to assist this Court in the matter, since the respondent

could not mark her appearance despite service of notice. Shri

Bora, learned counsel took me through the scheme of the Act

Writ Petition No.7613/2020

:: 4 ::

and the rules framed thereunder. According to him, the

petitioner being the earning son of the respondent, has an

obligation to maintain his age old mother, respondent, who is

80 plus. According to the learned counsel, the appellate

Tribunal was, in the facts and circumstances, justified in

passing