Dismissed

Siya Ram and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2017WRIC/69811/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought mandamus directing District Magistrate and SSP to decide on a maintenance application and evict their son and daughter-in-law. The Court held the District Magistrate lacked statutory authority as the requisite Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 was not constituted and no powers had been conferred on the Officer by the State Governm

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking direction to District Magistrate and SSP to decide on maintenance and eviction was dismissed as no statutory authority exists.

Siya Ram and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2017)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 69811 of 2015

¶3

Petitioner :- Siya Ram And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for State respondents.

¶6

Parents of respondent-4 i.e. Siya Ram, (father) and Shyamla, (mother) have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police, Gautam Buddh Nagar impleaded as respondents-2 and 3 to take decision on the application dated 18.08.2015 filed by petitioners regarding their maintenance and also for eviction of respondents-4 and 5 from illegal possession of petitioners' house. Respondent-4 is a son of the petitioners and respondent5 is daughter-in-law. It is said that they were causing lots of physical torture, misbehaviour etc. with the petitioners and also trying to usurp sole house owned by petitioners which is let out to tenants and is the only source of income of petitioners. They also filed false complaint with the police, as a result whereof, a Sub Inspector of Police Station- Sector 20, NOIDA forcibly brought petitioners to police station and after obtaining forcibly, letter of regret, they were allowed to go.

¶7

When questioned, as to how and under what statutory provisions respondents-2 and 3 can interfere in the nature of complaint made by respondents-4 and 5, learned counsel for petitioners referred to Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and

¶8

Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to "Act, 2007"). The provisions of Act, 2007 have been examined by us and we find that it contemplates Constitution of a Tribunal by State Government. An application for claiming maintenance etc. would lie before such Tribunal by Senior Citizens including parents falling within the relationship specified in Section 4 of said Act. Besides, Section 22 also empowers State Government to confer such powers and impose such duties on District Magistrate as is necessary to ensure that provisions of Act are properly carried out. When we enquired from learned counsel for petitioners as to whether any such Tribunal has been constituted and whether petitioners have applied before such Tribunal, he referred to an order dated 01.12.2014 passed by this Court in Writ petition No. 41028 of 2014 (Shree Krishna Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others) stating that Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal under the aforesaid Act have been constituted and are operational but further stated that no application has been filed by petitioners before such Tribunal.

¶9

On the contrary, learned Standing Counsel referred to the counter affidavit filed by respondent-2, sworn on 16.03.2016, stating that requisite Tribunal contemplated under Section 7 has not been constituted and in this regard a letter was also sent by District Magistrate to State Government on 05.03.2016. He also pointed out that though under Section 22 State Government may confer certain powers and duties upon District Magistrate, as it may found necessary to ensure proper compliance of provisions of the aforesaid Act, but as a matter of fact, no such order has made by State Government conferring any power upon District Magistrate. Therefore District Magistrate has no authority to take any action in the above family dispute of petitioners and respondents-4 and 5. In absence of any statutory authority vested in District Magistrate and also the fact that

¶10

counsel for petitioners could not show under which statutory provisions representation Annexure-1 has been made, and petitioners have a legal right to seek enforcement of a decision on their aforesaid representation by repsondents-2 and 3, in our view, no relief can be granted to petitioners in this petition and it is thoroughly misconceived. It is accordingly dismissed.

¶11

Order Date :- 7.12.2017 S. Thakur

Siya Ram and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siya Ram and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunworld City Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shiv Bhan Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Bhola Nath Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arunesh Kumar Vs U.P.S.R.T.C. and 3 Others

Suman Devi Vs Additional Commissioner Administration

Radhey Shyam Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Others