Dismissed¶30

Manju Devi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Jul 2025WPC/378/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur | WPC No. 378 of 2021 | neutral citation 2025:CGHC:34316 | Manju Devi v. State of Chhattisgarh, Collector Durg, SP Durg, SDO(Revenue) Durg, Yogendra Verma (Addl. Tahsildar & Executive Magistrate, Bhilai), Kamal Dev Singh (deceased during pendency) | Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 | SDO (Revenue)/Tribunal order appealable | dismissal on grounds of appealability and death of Respondent No.6 | liberty to avail available remedy | compensation claim of Rs. 10,00,000/- not granted | reference to High Court order dated 16.10.2019 | Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey | 18.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner would be at liberty to avail the remedy available under the law; no substantive relief was granted. ¶30

Manju Devi Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The petitioner would be at liberty to avail the remedy available under the law; no substantive relief was granted.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether appropriate writ/orders/directions should issue to Respondents 1, 2 and 3 for maintaining the status of the petitioner prior to 31.01.2020, in challenge to the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 +2 more

¶24

Court's answer

The order passed by the SubDivisional Officer (Revenue) challenged in this petition is appealable, and the Court took that fact into consideration in disposing of the petition.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.6, against whom relief has been sought, has died; the petition was also dismissed on this ground.

¶30

Key takeaways

The petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedy available under the law.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (WPC No. 378 of 2021, decided 18.07.2025, single Bench of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey) - Manju Devi v. State of Chhattisgarh and others: The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)/Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, and sought (i) maintenance of her status prior to 31.01.2020 through directions to Respondents 1-3 (State, Collector Durg, SP Durg); (ii) directions to initiate action against Respondent 5 (Yogendra Verma, Additional Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, Bhilai) and Respondent 6 (her husband, Kamal Dev Singh) for abuse of process of law 'in the blindage of' a High Court order dated 16.10.2019; and (iii) compensation of a minimum of Rs. 10,00,000/- payable by the respondents and recoverable from Respondents 5 and 6. During pendency, Respondent 6 died, as informed by his counsel Shri Vidya Bhushan Soni. Dismissing the petition, the Court held that the impugned SDO (Revenue) order is appealable and that Respondent 6, against whom relief was sought, has died; on these grounds the petition was dismissed, while expressly reserving the petitioner's liberty to avail the remedy available under the law. No precedents were cited or engaged with, and the impugned order itself was not adjudicated on its merits.

SMT NIRMALA RAO

2025:CGHC:34316

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 378 of 2021

¶7

1 - Manju Devi W/o Kamal Dev Singh Aged About 68 Years Presently R/o H. No. 312, Supela Bazar, Chudi Line, Nehru Bhawan Road, Supela, Bhilai, P.S. Supela, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Collector, Durg Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Superintendent Of Police Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Durg Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - Yogendra Verma Additional Tahsildar And Executive Magistrate, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶15

6 - Kamal Dev Singh S/o Late Arjun Singh Aged About 70 Years R/o Behind Chudi Line, Supela, Bhilai, P.S. Supela, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. Present Address- Shop No. 29-B, Dakshin Gangotri Supela, Bhilai, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

For Petitioner : None. For Respondent/ State : Shri Prateek Tiwari, P.L.

¶18

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

18.07.2025

¶22

None appears on behalf of the petitioner even when the case is taken up for hearing in the second round.

¶23

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:

¶24

“(i) That, this Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to issue a appropriate writ/orders/directions to the respondent no. 1, 2 & 3 for maintaining status of petitioner prior to date of 31.01.2020.

¶25

(ii) That, this Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to issue a appropriate writ/orders/directions to respondent no. 1, 2 & 3 to initiate action against the respondent no. 5 & 6 for abuse of process of law in the blindage of Hon'ble High Court order dated 16.10.2019.

¶26

(iii) That, this Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/orders/directions a to respondents to pay compensation minimum Rs. 10,00,000/- to the petitioner and recover it from respondent no. 5 & 6.

¶27

(iv) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which seems just and fair in the eyes of law, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶28

The petitioner has challenged the order passed under the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)/ the Tribunal. It is also informed by Shri Vidya Bhushan Soni, who was appearing for respondent No.6, that respondent No.6 – Kamal Dev Singh, the husband of the petitioner, has died during pendency of this petition.

¶29

¶30

Taking into consideration the fact that the order passed by the SubDivisional Officer (Revenue) is appealable, and further, respondent No.6 against whom relief has been sought, has died, the petition is dismissed on these grounds. The petitioner would be at liberty to avail the remedy available under the law.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶33

Nimmi

Manju Devi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju Devi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(Died), Sampat, Through Legal Heirs Vs Somaru

Dr. Rohit Kumar Sahu Vs Union Of India

Dilip Kumar Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Shukla, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kamod Das Vs Santram

Bhomraj Vs (Deleted ) Union Of India