wp274.16.J.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.274 OF 2016
1] Sanjay s/o Pandurang Ballewar,
Aged about 55 years,
Occ: Service, R/o Mahacali Collary
Mechanical Workshop, Babupeth,
Chandrapur, Dist. Chandrapur.
2] Sunil s/o Pandurang Ballewar,
Aged about 42 years,
Occ: Welder, R/o Rangari Ward,
Hinganghat, Tah. Hinganghat,
Dist. Wardha. ....... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
Shri Pandurang s/o Maroti Ballewar,
Aged about 85 years,
Occ: Nil, R/o Rangari Ward,
Hinganghat, Tah. Hinganghat,
Dist. Wardha. ....... RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri M.P. Kariya, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri I.S. Charlewar, Advocate for Respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
rd OCTOBER, 2016.
DATE: 3
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2016 00:29:26 :::
wp274.16.J.odt 2/4
2] The order of maintenance was passed on the
application under Section 4 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 ("said Act" for short) by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Maintenance Tribunal at Hinganghat.
The two brothers, who are the non-applicants, were directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.6000/- to the father. This order was the subject-matter of challenge in appeal before the Collector under Section 15 of the said Act. There was a delay of about 3 months and 19 days caused in filing an appeal. Hence, an application for condonation of delay was filed. By impugned order dated 09.10.2015 the application for condonation of delay has been rejected on the ground that no sufficient cause is made out by the petitioners. Hence, this writ petition.
3] After going through the averments made in the application and the order impugned in this petition, I am satisfied that the petitioners have made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay and the authority should have adopted a liberal approach in condoning the delay. The delay caused therefore, needs to be condoned and the order impugned needs to be set aside.
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2016 00:29:26 ::: wp274.16.J.odt 3/4
4] In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order
dated 09.10.2015 passed by the Collector rejecting the application for condonation of delay is hereby quashed and set aside.
The delay caused is condoned. The parties to appear before the Collector on 24.10.2016. No further notice shall be given to the parties.
5] The learned counsel for the petitioners are directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within a period of one month before the Collector which shall be disbursed to the respondent without prejudice to the rights of parties. In the event if there is any modification by the Collector, of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the amount so deposited shall be adjusted accordingly. So far as the balance amount is concerned there shall be stay to the recovery of the said amount and the appeal shall be decided within a period of three months from the date of first appearance of the parties before it. The deposit of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be the condition precedent to hear the appeal.
If amount is not deposited within stipulated period, the appeal itself shall stand dismissed.
JUDGE
NSN
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2016 00:29:26 :::
wp274.16.J.odt 4/4
C E R T I F I C A T E
"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment."
Uploaded by : Uploaded on : 07.10.2016.
N.S. Nikhare, P.A.
::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2016 00:29:26 :::