Dismissed

Hadman Ram @ Hanuman Singh v. Lichman Ram and Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Jul 2019CW/5694/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the writ petition challenging an order imposing a monthly maintenance liability of Rs. 1,000 under the Act of 2007, noting the amount was meager and refusal would deprive aged parents of support.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and the impugned orders of 24.05.2017 by SDM and 11.01.2018 by DC were affirmed.

Hadman Ram @ Hanuman Singh Vs Lichman Ram… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5694/2018

¶3

Hadman Ram @ Hanuman Singh S/o Shri Lichman Ram, R/o Jandva, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Lichman Ram Son Of Shri Seva Ram, R/o Jandva, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu, Rajasthan.

¶7

Anchi Wife Of Shri Lichman Ram, R/o Jandva, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu, Rajasthan.

¶8

The District Collector, Churu.

¶9

The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ratangarh, Distt. Churu.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishant Motsara For Respondent(s) : -

¶12

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶13

Order

¶14

03/07/2019

¶15

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.05.2017, passed by learned SubDivisional Magistrate, Ratangarh, as affirmed by the learned District Collector, Churu vide his order dated 11.01.2018 (Annexure-3).

¶16

Succinctly stated facts of the case are that the respondents No.1 and 2 filed a petition under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2007”), inter-alia, stating

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-5694/2018]

¶19

that they are leading their lives in penury and unable to meet their ends. The petitioner objected to such request by stating that the applicants-respondents No.1 and 2 are having agricultural land and sufficient means to lead comfortable and respectable lives.

¶20

Learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the competent authority, under the act of 2007, by way of the order dated 24.05.2017, directed each of the four sons to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month to the applicants. The petitioner preferred an appeal thereagainst before the District Collector, Churu which came to be rejected vide his order under consideration, passed on 11.01.2018.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner, oppugning the orders referred above, submitted that the respondents No.1 and 2, the petitioner’s father and mother, are having soft corner for one of the sons, namely Nathuram to whom they have sold their agricultural land, and instead of seeking maintenance from him they are unnecessarily harassing the petitioner.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter as the petitioner, being the son of respondents No.1 and 2, has been asked to pay a meager amount of Rs.1,000/- per month under the Act of 2007.

¶23

The petitioner’s argument and allegation that the respondents No.1 and 2 are having connivance with other son namely Nathuram cannot be considered in these proceedings, more particularly behind the back of said Nathuram. The petitioner cannot be oblivious of his social and statutory obligation

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CW-5694/2018]

¶26

and turn a flat face towards his parents, who have been compelled

¶27

to approach the authorities under the Act of 2007, in twilight of

¶28

their lives.

¶29

No case for interference is made out.

¶30

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

¶31

The Stay Petition No.5635/2018 also stands disposed of.

¶32

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶33

4-Ramesh/-

Hadman Ram @ Hanuman Singh v. Lichman Ram and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hadman Ram @ Hanuman Singh v. Lichman Ram and Ors.

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

Narayani Devi Vs Damodar Gattani

M/S. Lalita Udyog Vs Jvvnl,Jodhpur and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs District Collector, Bikaner and Anr.

Ramjan Khan and Ors. Vs Kishan Lal and Ors.

Shivlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajveer Singh Vs Managing Committee