Smt. Meena Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 7

¶2

2025:CGHC:60457

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 5011 of 2024

¶6

Smt. Meena Singh Thakur W/o Late Ravi Singh Thakur Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 5, Parshuram Para, Fingeshwar, Tahsil- Fingeshwar Dist.Gariyaband, C.G.

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector And District Magistrate Gariyabnad, C.G.

¶10

2 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Rajim, Dist.- Gariyaband, C.G.

¶11

3 - The Tahsildar Fingeshwar Dist.- Gariyaband, C.G.

¶12

4 - Sub-Division Magistrate (Revenue) Rajim Gariyaband, C.G.

¶13

5 - Smt. Kamla Singh Thakur W/o Late Prakash Singh Aged About 65 Years R/o Parshuram Para, Fingeshwar, Tah. - Rajim, Thana- Fingeshwar Dist.Gariyaband, C.G.

¶14

	... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner	: Mr. NeerajBaghel,Advocate
For Respondents No. 1 to 4/State	: Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.5	: Mr. S.C. Verma, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Manharan Lal Sahu, Advocate

¶15

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.12.16 10:51:06 +0530

¶16

2 / 7

¶17

SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

11/12/2025

¶20

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:

¶21

“ 10.1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal.

¶22

10.2. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased set aside/quashed notices/ memorandum dated 20.06.2024; 25.07.2024;13.09.2024 (Annexure P-2 Colly).

¶23

10.3. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quashed order dated 14.06.2024 (AnnexureP/3) by issuing appropriate writ/writs or order/orders.

¶24

10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quashed order dated 09.08.2024 (AnnexureP/4).

¶25

10.5. Any other relief order or direction which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost of the petition. ”

¶26

Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that respondent No.5 has submitted an application under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 2007”), before Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue). Application submitted by respondent No.5 was allowed vide order dated 14.06.2024 against which petitioner herein preferred appeal in terms of Section 16 of Act of 2007 before the Collector, which was dismissed, recording finding that appeal is not maintainable on the ground that according to provision under Section 16 of the Act of 2007,

¶27

3 / 7

¶28

appeal can be filed only by parents or senior citizens and not by daughter-in-law. Order passed by Collector as also SDO(R) are under challenge in this writ petition.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order of Collector is per se illegal and arbitrary. He contended that petitioner against whom order is passed by SDO (R) is an aggrieved party and therefore she is having the right to challenge the order of SDO (R) passed on an application under Section 5 of the Act of 2007 submitted by respondent No.5. He contended that order of SDO (R) dated 14.06.2024 Annexure P-3 is without jurisdiction as the power to entertain an application filed under Section 5 of the Act of 2007 is vested with the Tribunal and not with the SDO individually and therefore at present he is pressing the aforementioned ground to challenge the legality and sustainability of order passed by SDO (R) as also Collector.

¶30

Learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.5 would oppose submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that there is no document to show that any Tribunal is constituted at Rajim District- Gariyaband in terms of Section 7 of the Act of 2007 and if the Tribunal is not constituted, then SDO can entertain and consider the application so filed under Section 5 of the Act of 2007. He also contended that he has filed application for vacating stay on the ground that taking cognizance of interim order passed by this Court on 03.10.2024, petitioner herein has locked the door of the house.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with this writ petition.

¶32

4 / 7

¶33

Perusal of the pleadings made in the writ petition would show that petitioner is the eldest daughter-in-law of respondent No.5 and resides in the residential accommodation subject matter of writ petition along with her son aged 12 years. It is the case of petitioner that as respondent No.5 does not want to give a place for residence to petitioner, she filed an application under the Act of 2007 before respondent No.2/Sub Divisional Officer (R), Gariyaband, on the grounds mentioned therein.

¶34

Perusal of record would show that SDO (R) while exercising powers under the Act of 2007 has passed the order impugned directing petitioner to vacate the subject accommodation which is a residential house. The order dated 14.06.2024 passed by the SDO (R) was put to challenge in an appeal by the petitioner before the Collector, which also came to be dismissed by the appellate authority, being not maintainable, affirming the order of SDO (R).

¶35

The primary object of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, is to provide effective legal provisions for the financial security, welfare, and protection of senior citizens, ensuring they can live with dignity by making it mandatory for children and relatives to provide maintenance (food, shelter, medical care) and establishing Maintenance Tribunals for quick dispute resolution.

¶36

Section 6 of the Act of 2007 deals with jurisdiction and procedure. Section 6 (1) envisages that the proceedings under Section 5 may be taken against any children or relative in any district. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 envisages that application under Section 5 is to be considered and decided by the Tribunal. Constitution of Maintenance

¶37

5 / 7

¶38

Tribunal is provided under Section 7 of the Act of 2007, which is extracted below for ready reference:-

¶39

“ 7. Constitution of Maintenance Tribunal.

¶40

(1) The State Government shall within a period of six months from the date of the commencement of this Act may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute for each Sub-Division one or more Tribunals as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating and deciding upon the order for maintenance under section 5.

¶41

(2) The Tribunal shall be presided over by an officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer of a State.

¶42

(3) Where two or more Tribunals are constituted for any area, the State Government may, by general or special order, regulate the distribution of business among them. ”

¶43

Perusal of above quoted provision would show that the State Government shall constitute the Tribunal for each sub-division and notify the same within a period of six months from the date of commencement of the Act of 2007. In compliance of the same, the State Government issued Notification dated 24.01.2009 constituted the Tribunal presided over by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) as President and three other Members. Constitution of 'Tribunal' notified is as under:-

¶44

“dzekad F-1@2009@l-d-@26& ekrk&firk ,o a ofj"B ukxfjd dk Hkj.k iks"k.k rFkk dY;k.k vf/kfu;e 2007 ¼dasfnª; vf/kfu;e2007 dk la&56½ dh /kkjk 7 dh mi/kkjk 1 }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx es ykrs gq,] jkT; ljdkj ,rn~ }kjk

¶45

6 / 7

¶46

Hkj.k iks"k.k vf/kfu;e dk xBu djrh gS] ftles fuEuqlkj lnL; gksaxs%&

¶47

% v?;{k

¶48

1-vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ¼jktLo½ ¼muds dk;Z {ks= vUrxZr½

¶49

% lnL;

¶50

2- vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ds eq+[;ky; dh tuin iapk;r ds v?;{k vFkok muds }kjk ukekafdr tuin iapk;r efgyk lnL;

¶51

% lnL;

¶52

3- vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh ds eq+[;ky; es inLFk fodkl [kaM fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh

¶53

% lnL;

¶54

4- vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh }kjk ukekafdr 60 o"kZ ls vf/kd vk;q ds ofj"B ukxfjd

¶55

Perusal of the order which is under challenge in this petition would show that the same has been passed by the SDO (R) in his individual capacity and not by the Tribunal constituted in accordance with provisions of Section 7 of the Act of 2007.

¶56

Considering the facts and circumstances of case, the provisions of the Act of 2007, Notification dated 24.01.2009 issued by the State Government, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order impugned passed by the SDO (R) being without authority of law is liable to be set aside. Consequently, appellate order is also liable to be set aside.

¶57

Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 14.06.2024 (Annexure P-3) and 09.08.2024 (Annexure P-4) are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the SDO (R) for placing the application submitted by respondent No.5 before the Tribunal constituted vide Notification dated 24.01.2009 in accordance with Section 7 of the Act of 2007.

¶58

7 / 7

¶59

Taking into consideration that respondent No.5 is a senior citizen, aged about 65 years, the Tribunal is directed to decide the application in accordance with law at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of this order.

¶60

Certified copy as per rules.

¶61

Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶62

Praveen

Smt. Meena Singh Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Meena Singh Thakur 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

Ramkumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Indus Tower Limited, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Doman Lal Markandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Joidha Verma Vs Smt. Kamla Bai Verma and Ors.

Smt. Rahmat Bee (Dead) Kamruddin (Dead) through Lrs. and Ors. Vs Harshveer Singh and Ors.