Dismissed

Murlidhar Soni v. Rajendra Soni

Rajasthan HC4 Jan 2022SAW/277/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

D.B. Division of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed an appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, upholding the Tribunal's findings that the appellant was misbehaving and receiving pension.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the judgment of the Single Judge and the earlier Tribunal orders stood affirmed.

Murlidhar Soni Vs Rajendra Soni — Maintenance and Alimony | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

(1 of 3)

¶2

[SAW-277/2019]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 277/2019

¶5

Murlidhar Soni S/o Late Shri Jasraj Soni, Aged About 89 Years, R/o Singpole Upper Side Street, Jodhpur.

¶6

----Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Rajendra Soni S/o Murlidhar Soni, R/o Singpole Upper Side Street, Jodhpur.

¶9

Dharmendra Soni S/o Murlidhar Soni,, Aged About 47 Years, R/o B.j.s Colony, Jodhpur

¶10

District Collector Cum Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur.

¶11

Sub Division Officer Cum Tribunal, Jodhpur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, AAG Mr. Himmat Singh Shekhawat

¶14

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

Order

04/01/2022

I.A. No. 1/2019:

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay caused in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶19

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶20

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 277/2019 :

¶21

This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13.9.2017 passed in writ petition S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11157/2017.

¶22

The petition was filed by the present appellant who is senior citizen. He had instituted proceedings before the Tribunal

¶23

(2 of 3)

¶24

[SAW-277/2019]

¶25

constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2007’) against his two sons seeking maintenance from them as well as their eviction from the house property. The Tribunal as well as Appellate Tribunal under the said Act of 2007 dismissed his case, upon which he had filed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment while dismissing the said writ petition observed that:-

¶26

“ The trial court as well as appellate court have given a categorical finding that since beginning the petitioner is misbehaving with his wife and during his life time had not taken care of his sons i.e. the respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is also observed that from the material available on record, it is clear that the petitioner is misbehaving with the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and his wife. It is also taken into consideration that the petitioner is a retired employee and is getting Rs.15,000/- per month as pension. It is further observed that though the house where the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are residing, is in the name of petitioner but the said house was renovated by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by spending a huge amount on it.

¶27

The appellate court has rightly observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot order the eviction of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from the house where they are residing and for that purpose the petitioner can avail appropriate remedy available to him under the civil law.

¶28

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the impugned orders, I do not find any illegality in the same. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. ”

¶29

(3 of 3)

¶30

[SAW-277/2019]

¶31

It can, thus, be seen that consistently two Tribunals below as well as the learned Single Judge have come to the conclusion that the appellant – original petitioner himself is receiving sizable pension, that he had not looked after his wife and children in the past, that he has been quarrelling and misbehaving with his wife and children. Under the circumstances, in view of such concurrent findings of fact, we do not find any reason to upset the order passed by the two Tribunals as confirmed by the learned Single Judge.

¶32

It must be appreciated that the proceedings under the Act of 2007 are summary in nature.

¶33

Before closing, we may record that it is stated before us that the appellant himself is residing on the ground floor of the property, the respondent no.1 is residing on the the first floor and the second son – respondent no.2 is residing separately with his mother.

¶34

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

¶35

(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J

¶36

(AKIL KURESHI),CJ

¶37

12-Mak/-

Murlidhar Soni v. Rajendra Soni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murlidhar Soni v. Rajendra Soni

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

Seemajan Kalyan Samiti Vs Union of India

Aam Janta, Gram Panchayat, Mundasar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ram Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Madan Singh Boda Vs State of Rajasthan

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-1 Vs M/S Vishnu Prakash R. Pungalia

State of Rajasthan Vs Piyush Patidar