The High Court dismissed the writ petition. It held that the statutory liability of the son to pay maintenance to his aged father under the relevant Act precluded interference with the impugned order directing a monthly payment of Rs.5,000/-.
Directing the petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to his father from the current month onwards.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writs No. 1671/2012
Sushil Kumar Jain Son Of Shri Hazari Lal Jain, Aged About 46 Years, House No. 2405, Dhai Ki Gali, Ghee Walon Ka Rasta, Johri Bajar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. |
Kapil Gupta |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. |
M.C.Jain |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Judgment / Order
17/04/2018
The writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 19.10.2011 whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance to his father of a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that there are lot of litigations which have arisen between father and his son. There are some disputes between them. Both father and his son were also called for amicable settlement. It appears that father has lot of apprehensions as against his son. There is a property wherein the petitioner’s father is residing and the petitioner’s father stated that he has filed civil suit for cancellation of Registry relating to
(2 of 2)
[CW-1671/2012]
the said house where he is presently residing as against the petitioner seeking injunction for peaceful possession of the house ensue wherein directions have given in the Civil Suit No.250/2016 on 18.4.2017 to both the parties with regard to maintain status quo relating to rooms where the father is residing.
Heard both the counsels at length.
It is an admitted position that the petitioner is residing elsewhere. As regards the question relating to the title of the house the litigation is pending before the concerned Court. Be that as it may, suffice it to state that father, who is now quite old, is the responsibility of his son to maintain and he is entitled to receive maintenance under The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
In view of the statutory responsibility, son is required to pay maintenance per month to his aged father. In the circumstances, the amount as directed by Court vide order dated 19.10.2011 is not required to be interfered. The petitioner would regularly pay the said amount to his father by depositing in his account, amount of Rs.5,000/- per month. Payment has to be made from this month onwards as earlier interim order was passed by Court reducing the maintenance.
It is free for the aged father to move an application for enhancement of amount under the said act.
With the said observations, the writ petition is disposed of. The order passed in stay application stands merged with the present order.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
Anu
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the son is statutorily liable to pay maintenance to his aged father under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sushil Kumar Jain
Hazari Lal Jain
Court Of Senior Citizen Tribunal And Sub Divisional Officer-Ii, Collectorate, Jaipur
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
