Bholenath Mevalal Nishad vs Shyamdulari Mevalal Nishad — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Bholenath Mevalal Nishad vs Shyamdulari Mevalal Nishad — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 16 of the Act, 2007; if the appeal is filed within one week, the Appellate Authority is requested to hear and decide it expeditiously, preferably within six weeks; liberty to file an application for ad-interim/interim relief along with the appeal memo, to be decided within three weeks of filing; ad-interim relief granted by this Court to continue operating for four weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition should be entertained where the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

Court's answer

In view of the decision of this Court in Jagdish Pitamber Pawar (W.P. 36 of 2023, Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench), the petitioner, being the son of respondent no. 1, a senior citizen, has a remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 16 of the Act, 2007.

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner has the statutory remedy, it was expedient to provide him an opportunity to approach the Appellate Authority; accordingly, the petition was disposed as withdrawn with liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 16 of the Act, 2007.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under the Civil Appellate Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 4th March 2025 of the Senior Citizens Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, directing the petitioner (son of respondent no. 1, a senior citizen) to vacate the subject premises. Relying on the decision of this Court in Jagdish Pitamber Pawar vs. Pitamber Pundalik Pawar and Ors (W.P. 36 of 2023, Bombay H.C., Aurangabad Bench), the Court held that the petitioner has a remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 16 of the Act, 2007. The petition was disposed as withdrawn with liberty to file such an appeal; if filed within one week, the Appellate Authority was requested to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within six weeks; the petitioner was granted liberty to seek ad-interim/interim relief, such application to be decided within three weeks; and the ad-interim relief granted by the High Court was directed to continue for four weeks. (N.J. Jamadar, J.; decided 11 August 2025.)

2025:BHC-AS:34743

29-wp-5478-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 5478 OF 2025

Bholenath Mevalal Nishad … Petitioner V/s. Shyamdulari Mevalal Nishad. … Respondent -------------------

Mr. S.S Redekar, for the petitioner. Mr. Mohan Pillai, for the respondent no. 1. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP, for the State/Respondent no. 2.

CORAM : N.J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 11^th AUGUST 2025

PC:

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 4^th March 2025 passed by the Senior Citizens Tribunal, under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 thereby directing the petitioner to vacate the subject premises

In view of the decision of this Court in the case of ‘Jagdish Pitamber Pawar vs. Pitamber Pundalik Pawar and Ors”¹ , the petitioner

who is the son of the respondent no. 1, a senior citizen, has a remedy

1 W.P. 36 of 2023 of Bombay H.C. at A’bad bench.

1 of 3

varsha

29-wp-5478-2025.doc

of appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 16 of the Act, 2007.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will explore the appellate remedy.

The learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 opposes the submissions on behalf of the petitioner and it was urged that the respondent no. 2, who is the owner of the subject premises, has been kept away from the subject premises.

Since the petitioner has the statutory remedy, it will be expedient to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority.

The petition, thus, stands disposed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 16 of the Act, 2007.

In the event such an appeal is filed within a period of one week, the Appellate Authority is requested to hear and decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible, and, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the filing of the appeal.

2 of 3

varsha

29-wp-5478-2025.doc

The petitioner is at liberty to file an application for ad-interim / interim relief before the Appellate Authority

In the event such an application is filed along with the appeal memo, within one week, as indicated above, the said application for ad-interim relief/ interim relief be also decided within a period of three weeks from the date of the filing of the application.

Ad interim relief, granted by this Court, shall continue to operate for a period of four weeks.

(N.J. JAMADAR, J)

Signed by: S.S.Phadke varsha Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 12/08/2025 18:53:00

3 of 3