Dismissed

Rasiyawan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare Lko, 4 Other

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2022WRIC/231/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought mandamus directing the District Magistrate to decide an application under Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, for ousting co-habitants. The Court held the matter doesn't fall under Section 22 and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for directing opposite party no. 2 to decide application under Section 22 is rejected.

Rasiyawan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 231 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Rasiyawan

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare Lko, 4 Other Counsel for Petitioner :- Dushyant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite party no. 2 to decide the application/complaint No. 20017721015419 dated 23.11.2021 moved by the petitioner under Section 22 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

¶8

We have gone through the application made by the petitioner before the District Magistrate. The prayer made therein is for ousting the opposite parties no. 4 and 5 from the residential accommodation where the petitioner is residing along with his son and daughter-in-law. The unwelcome behaviour of his own son or the daughter-in-law may have caused some anxiety in the mind of the petitioner, but we do not find ouster of one's own children from the residential accommodation belonging to a person within the scope of Section 22 of the Act placed reliance upon. The family matters are largely personal in nature, which are knitted in the traditions. Any external interference in the family matters is warranted under extreme personal grievance arising out of some misunderstanding or loneliness, but dragging the children or parents into the litigation is not a healthy practice and will not serve any purpose.

¶9

The pending application not being within the scope of Section

¶10

22 of the Act cannot be directed to be decided in terms of the prayer made herein.

¶11

We, however, leave it open to the petitioner to make a proper application before the competent authority, provided he is subjected to any such situation of abandonment or left uncared by the opposite parties no. 4 and 5 which may lead him to find a difficult situation for his livelihood or dignity in the society. Unless such a situation is specifically spelt out in the application, interference by the District Authorities is uncalled for.

¶12

We do not see any reason to grant the prayer made in the present writ petition, therefore, the same is rejected.

¶13

The writ petition is dismissed .

¶14

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. ]

¶15

Order Date :- 18.1.2022 Santosh/-

Rasiyawan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare Lko, 4 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rasiyawan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare Lko, 4 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Nayan Verma Vs State of U.P through the Secre. and 4 Others

State of U.P. Thru, Prin, Secy, Public Work Dep, Sect, Lko and Another Vs Ravi Das

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of Up Thru.District Collector/Zilaadhikari and Others