Sanjay S/O Pandurang Ballewar And ... vs Shri Pandurang S/O Maroti ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 5828 Bom

     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.





      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.

           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





      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.