Smt. Krishnavati vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Social Welfare and 5 Others

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Dayal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ram Kumar Maurya, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, Sri Rama Kant Dixit, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite parties no.4, 5 and 6 and filed his vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

¶12

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 14.11.2025, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Sarojininagar, Lucknow in Case No.3911 of 2025, under Section 7(1) of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The aforesaid order was passed upon an application filed by the opposite party no.4, in which the following were impleaded as opposite parties:

¶13

"1. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sarojininagar, Lucknow U.P.

¶14

2. Smt. Krishnawati, W/o Shri Ram Yadav,

¶15

3. Smt. Reena Yadav, Wo/ Shri Suresh Yadav,

¶16

4. Smt. Pushpa Yadav, W/o Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav,

¶17

5. Shri Suresh Yadav, S/o Shri Vishram Yadav,

¶18

WRIC No. 1569 of 2026

¶19

2

¶20

6. Shri Rajesh Yadav, S/o Shri Somai Yadav,

¶21

7. Shri Deshraj Yadav, S/o Late Shri Badriprasad Yadav,

¶22

8. Smt. Savitri W/o Shri Charan Singh and D/o Late Shri Tilak Ram,

¶23

9. Smt. Maya Devi, Late Shri Subhash Chandra Yadav."

¶24

The application in which the Sub Divisional Magistrate himself was impleaded as an opposite party, has been allowed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate himself by the impugned order dated 14.11.2025.

¶25

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Sub Divisional Magistrate having himself been a party to the application was not competent to decide the application no person can not be a judge of his own cause therefore the order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶26

In response to this objection, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 has submitted that the application has been filed in furtherance of directions issued by a Division Bench of this court in Writ-C No.9738 of 2025, decided on 26.09.2025 wherein the court had directed the opposite party no.4 to file a well drafted application before the District Magistrate, Lucknow who would nominate Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned to look into the matter and pass appropriate orders.

¶27

It is settled law that jurisdiction can be conferred by the statute alone and not by any court, not even by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶28

The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 confers jurisdiction to entertain applications by persons who are unable to maintain themselves upon Maintenance Tribunal which the SDM. Therefore, the application ought to have been filed before the SDM and not before the District Magistrate.

¶29

WRIC No. 1569 of 2026

¶30

3

¶31

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no notice of the application was served upon the petitioner the opposite parties no.5 and 6, who are in collusion with the opposite party no.4, appeared and submitted no objection against the application.

¶32

Collusion of the petitioner and the opposite parties no.4, 5 and 6 is apparent from fact that they have filed a joint vakalatnama in favour of the same counsel. The application filed by the opposite party no.4 has been allowed by its service on non-contesting party and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which also renders the impugned order violative of principles of natural justice.

¶33

The matter requires detailed consideration.

¶34

The opposite parties may filed a counter affidavit within four weeks from today. In case counter affidavit is filed the petitioner may file a rejoinder affidavit within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶35

List this case in the week commencing 20.04.2026.

¶36

Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions, as an interim measure it is provided that till the next date of listing the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 14.11.2025, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow in Case No.3911 of 2025, under Section 7(1) of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 shall remain stayed.

¶37

February 27, 2026

¶38

Ram.

¶39

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶40

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Krishnavati v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Social Welfare and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Krishnavati v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Social Welfare and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Santosh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Jumman vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. and Others

M/S R. B. Industries,Thru. Its Partner Sumit Goel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. State Tax Lko. and 2 Others

Kailash Nath Gupta vs Smt. Rama Devi and Another

Madhuri Devi @ Rajeshvari Devi vs Ram Sipahi

Shivam Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Reveneue Deptt., Lko. and Others