Dismissed¶¶24

Satyavir Singh v. District Magistrate Cum Appellate Tribunal Charkhi Dadri and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC5 May 2025CWP/27611/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Senior citizen's claim under Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (Sections 4, 5 and 23) refused after death of son against whom claim was raised; no claim maintainable against widow daughter-in-law (respondent No. 3, Saroj) or minor grandson (respondent No. 5); appellate dismissal dated 20.07.2022 and original dismissal dated 31.08.2021 upheld; writ petition CWP-27611-2022 (O&M) dismissed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Harsimran Singh Sethi, J., 05.05.2025); liberty granted to pursue alternative remedy subject to its requisites.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner given liberty to avail any other remedy available to him against the respondents, subject to fulfillment of the requisite of such remedy. ¶¶24

Satyavir Singh Vs District Magistrate Cum Appellate Tribunal Charkhi Dadri and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner given liberty to avail any other remedy available to him against the respondents, subject to fulfillment of the requisite of such remedy.

¶¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether, following the death of the son against whom the petitioner-senior citizen's claim under the 2007 Act was raised, any claim can be pursued against the widow daughter-in-law (respondent No. 3) and the minor grandson (respondent No. 5), and whether any ground therefore exists for this Court to interfere with the dismissals of 31.08.2021 (Annexure P-1) and 20.07.2022 (Annexure P-2).

¶¶23

Court's answer

Since the son of the petitioner-senior citizen has already died, and no claim can be raised by the petitioner-senior citizen against his daughter-in-law or his minor grandchildren under the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizen Act, 2007 — a fact not rebutted by the petitioner's counsel — no ground is made out for any interference by this Court.

¶¶23

Key takeaways

If any other remedy is available to the petitioner, he may avail it against the respondents, subject to fulfilment of the requisites of such remedy.obiter¶¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (CWP-27611-2022 (O&M), decided 05.05.2025; Harsimran Singh Sethi, J.) dismissed the writ petition of petitioner-senior citizen Satyavir Singh challenging (i) the order dated 31.08.2021 (Annexure P-1) of respondent No. 2 dismissing his application under Sections 4, 5 and 23 of the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizen Act, 2007 ('2007 Act'), and (ii) the order dated 20.07.2022 (Annexure P-2) of respondent No. 1, the appellate authority, dismissing his appeal. Counsel for the respondents submitted — and counsel for the petitioner did not dispute — that the son against whom the claim was raised had already died; that respondent No. 3-Saroj is the widow-daughter-in-law and respondent No. 5 the minor grandson of the petitioner; and that no claim can be raised by the petitioner-senior citizen against his daughter-in-law and the minor grandson under the 2007 Act. Holding that no ground was made out for interference, the Court dismissed the writ petition while giving the petitioner liberty to avail any other available remedy against the respondents, subject to fulfillment of that remedy's requisites; pending civil miscellaneous applications stood disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

211

¶3

CWP-27611-2022 (O&M) Decided on : 05.05.2025

SATYAVIR SINGH

..PETITIONER

Versus

DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHARKHI DADRI AND OTHERS

¶8

...RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

¶10

PRESENT: Mr. Amarjit Beniwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. S. K. Sharma, Advocate for Mr. R. A. Sheoran, Advocate for respondent No. 3.

¶12

¶13

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

¶14

In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 31.08.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2, by which an application filed by the petitoner under Sections 4, 5 and 23 of the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (hereinafter for short ‘2007 Act’) has been dismissed. Further challenge of the petitioner is to the impugned order dated 20.07.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No. 1 by which, the appeal filed by the petitoner has also been dismissed by the appellate authority.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner-senior citizen submits that the petitioner-senior citizen had filed a claim before the authorities concerned under 2007 Act against his son and both the authorities decided against the

¶16

RIYA 2025.05.12 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CWP-27611-2022 (O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

petitioner-senior citizen and the present petition has been filed by the petitioner-senior citizen challenging both the orders 31.08.2021 (Annexure P-1) and 20.07.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by the authorities concerned so as to grant the relief under 2007 Act.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the son of the petitioner-senior citizen against whom the claim was raised by the senior citizens has already died. Learned counsel for respondents further submits that respondent No. 3-Saroj is the widow-daughter-in-law and respondent No. 5 is the minor grandson of the petitioner-senior citizen and no claim can be raised by the petitioner-senior citizen against his daughter-in-law and the minor grandson.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitoner on the other hand does not disputing the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents recorded herein above.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance.

¶23

Once, the son of the petitioner-senior citizen has already died and no claim can be raised by the petitioner-senior citizen against his daughter-in-law or his minor grandchildren under the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizen Act, 2007, which fact has also not been rebutted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, hence, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶24

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that liberty be given

¶25

RIYA 2025.05.12 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CWP-27611-2022 (O&M)

¶27

-3-

¶28

to the petitioner to avail any other remedy.

¶29

In case, any such remedy is available with the petitioner, the petitioner can avail the said remedy subject to fulfillment of the requisite of any such remedy against the respondents.

¶30

10 Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶31

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE

¶32

05.05.2025 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes /No Whether Reportable: Yes /No

¶33

RIYA 2025.05.12 18:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Satyavir Singh v. District Magistrate Cum Appellate Tribunal Charkhi Dadri and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyavir Singh v. District Magistrate Cum Appellate Tribunal Charkhi Dadri and Others

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

Vijender Singh Vs State of Haryana

Chander Parkash Vs State of Haryana etc.

Ram Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Punjab Pradesh Galla Mazdoor Union Amritsar Vs Registrar Trade Union Pb Cum Labour Commissioner Pb and Anr.

Bikram Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.