Dismissed

Rajendra Singh v. Sukhdeo Kaur and Anr.

Rajasthan HC1 Apr 2019CW/2662/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Section 4 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the petitioner challenged orders declining maintenance but allowing return of land. The Court found no interference warranted as maintenance was denied while land possession was allowed, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the impugned orders denying maintenance was dismissed. The stay petition was also dismissed.

Rajendra Singh Vs Sukhdeo Kaur and Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 2662/2018

¶3

Rajendra Singh S/o Sh Teja Singh, B/c Jat Sikh, R/o Chak Jawala Singhwala Tehsill And Dist Hanumangarh At Present 56/115 Rajatpath Mansrover Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Sukhdeo Kaur W/o Sh Sh Teja Singh, B/c Jat Sikh, R/o Chak Jawala Singhwala Tehsil And Dist Hanumangarh Applicant.

¶7

The Balwinder Singh S/o Sh Teja Singh, B/c Jat Sikh, R/o Chak Jawala Singhwala Tehsil And Dist Hanumangarh Non- Applicant.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. VK Bhadu For Respondent(s) :

¶10

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶11

Order

¶12

01/04/2019

¶13

The prayer for grant of maintenance has been declined by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh on 13.01.2016 but the land which belongs to the mother of the present petitioner has been ordered to be returned back to her in accordance with law. Against the said order, petitioner has been preferred the appeal before the Collector, Hanumangarh, however, the same was also dismissed vide order dated 13.01.2016, as the maintenance was not allowed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready to give maintenance to his mother. Learned

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CW-2662/2018]

¶17

counsel, however, submits that since civil suit is going on regarding the land in question, therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained.

¶18

After seeing the record of the case and hearing the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, this Court finds that the impugned orders have refused indulgence of maintenance in accordance with Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to the mother of the present petitioner, who is respondent No.1, but at the same time the land belonging to the mother was to be allowed to be possessed by her in accordance with law.

¶19

In view of the above, this Court is not at all inclined to make any interference in the impugned orders by which the maintenance has been denied and merely an observation has been made that if any land belongs to respondent No.1 then she shall be allowed to possess the same. Hence, no case for interference is made out in the present writ petition.

¶20

Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. Stay petition No.2717/2018 also stands dismissed accordingly.

¶21

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶22

15-Sudheer/-

Rajendra Singh v. Sukhdeo Kaur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Singh v. Sukhdeo Kaur and Anr.

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

Lrs of Chandra Prakash S/O Shri Parasram, Vs Mohammed Nisar

Kamla Devi Vs Urban Improvement Trust

Thomas Cangan Memorial College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education

Balraj Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S. Mohan Traders Vs State of Rajasthan

Kiran Sewak Vs State of Rajasthan