Disposed

Shashikant Banjara v. Shanti Bai Banjara

Chhattisgarh HC12 Jul 2023WPC/3115/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an appeal order under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The court held that the grievance regarding non-impleadment of other children can be addressed through an application under Section 10 of the Act filed before the Tribunal, reserving liberty for the petitioners to approach the Tribunal for

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted liberty to approach the Tribunal via an application under Section 10 of the Act of 2007 for redressal of grievance regarding non-impleadment of children.

Shashikant Banjara Vs Shanti Bai Banjara — Maintenance and Alimony | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 3115 of 2023

¶5

Shashikant Banjara S/o Late Ghasiya Ram Aged About 48 Years Resident of Sukhapali, Nayaktada Para, Tahsil Dabhra, District - Sakti (Chhattisgarh)

¶6

Firtin Bai W/o Late Nawadha Banjara Aged About 38 Years Resident of Sukahpali, Nayaktada Para, Tahsil Dabhra, District - Sakti (Chhattisgarh)

¶7

Santoshi Banjara (Daughter of Late Ghasiya Ram Banjara) W/o Dinesh Banjara Aged About 40 Years, Caste - Banjara, Resident of Sukhapali, Tahsil Dabhra, District Sakti (Chhattisgarh)

¶8

------Petitioners

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

Shanti Bai Banjara W/o Late Ghasiya Ram Banjara Caste Banjara, Resident of Sukhapali, Nayaktada Para, Tahsil Dabhra, District Sakti (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

State of Chhattisgarh, Collector, Sakti, District Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Dabhra District Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶13

------- Respondents

¶14

(cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr. Udhoram Koshaley , Advocate

¶16

For Respondent-State : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Govt. Advocate

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD

¶18

12/07/2023

¶19

Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the Respondent No. 2/ Collector, District Sakti, in an appeal under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short “Act of 2007”).

¶20

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that Respondent No. 1 who is mother of Petitioner No. 1 & 3 and mother-in-law of Petitioner No. 2 filed an application seeking maintenance under Section 5 of the Act of 2007. Respondent No. 1 is having three daughters and two sons; however, other two daughters and one son have not been made party respondents in the application under Section 5 who are also having

¶21

¶22

the liability to maintain Respondent No. 1. In the application detail of other children is not mentioned and not made non applicants. If maintenance amount is to be paid to Respondent No. 1 then the total amount of maintenance could have been shared by all the children along with petitioners. It is submitted that direction be issued to the authorities to implead other children as non-applicants.

¶23

Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned State counsel submits that the impugned order is passed in accordance with law.

¶24

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the respective counsel as also the documents placed on record would show that Respondent No. 1 has filed application under Section 12 of the Act of 2007 against three persons only. Section 4 of the Act of 2007 talks of Maintenance of parents and senior citizens, bare reading of provision under Section 4 would reveal that the parents and the senior citizens can claim maintenance from the persons who are entitled to inherit the property of senior citizen in the proportion in which they would inherit his property. As the ground raised by learned counsel for petitioner is Respondent No. 1 has not arrayed all her children as party respondents. Provisions to Section 10 of the Act of 2007 provides for alteration of maintenance which is extracted below for ready reference:

¶25

“ 10. Alteration in allowance.– (1) On proof of misrepresentation or mistake of fact or a change in the circumstances of any person, receiving a monthly allowance under Section 5, for the maintenance or ordered under that section to pay a monthly allowance for the maintenance, the Tribunal may make such alteration, as it things fit, in the allowance for the maintenance.

¶26

(2) Where it appears to the Tribunal that, in consequence of any decision of a competent Civil Court, any order made under section 9 should be cancelled or varied, it shall cancel the order or, as the case may be, vary the same accordingly.”

¶27

¶28

Considering the submission of learned counsel for petitioners as also the provisions of Section 10 of the Act of 2007, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition at this stage reserving liberty in favour of petitioners to approach the Tribunal by way of filing an application under Section 10 of the Act of 2007 for redressal of their grievance.

¶29

With the aforementioned observation and direction, writ petition is

¶30

disposed of.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶33

pāwān

Shashikant Banjara v. Shanti Bai Banjara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikant Banjara v. Shanti Bai Banjara

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

Mohan Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rachna Suryawanshi (in Person) Vs State of Chhattisgarh through Principal Secretary

Ashwani Kumar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ganga Prasad Rathore Vs Bajrang Dubey

Kusum Dwivedi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bharatlal Chandra Vs State of Chhattisgarh