Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rachna Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 November, 2021
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P No. 18686/2021
(Rachna Soni & others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & ors)
Jabalpur, Dated: 18/11/2021
Shri Arunodaya Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Petitioners are assailing the order dated 24 th August, 2021 passed by
the Collector District Rewa in Case No. 112/B-121/Mool/2020-21 under
provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act,
2007 on the ground that as per provisions contained in section 7 the Tribunal
is to be presided by an Officer not below the rank of the Sub Divisional Officer
of a State. As per provisions contained in section 15 of the Act of 2007, the
appellate Tribunal is to be constituted for each district.
As per provision contained in sub-section 2 of Section 15 appellate
tribunal shall be presided over by an Officer not below the rank of District
Magistrate. Thus, it is submitted that District Magistrate has usurp the power
of the Tribunal and has passed an order, thus curtailing right of the appellant
to file a appeal. Thus, this writ petition.
Another ground which has been raised by learned counsel for the
petitioner is that no order could have been passed under the provisions of Act
of 2007 against the daughter-in-law in as much as per definition of children
given in section 2(a), "children" includes son, daughter, grandson and grand-
daughter, but does not include a minor. It is submitted that even it does not
include daughter-in-law, therefore, no order could have been passed against
the petitioner no.1.
In support of his contention petitioner has placed reliance on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Smt. S. Vanitha Vs. The Deputy
Commissioner Bengaluru Urban District & ors in Civil Appeal No.
2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P No. 18686/2021
(Rachna Soni & others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & ors)
3822/2020 to buttress his claim that no relief could have been passed against
the daughter-in-law.
As far as question of relief against the daughter-in-law is concerned, it
has been held in case of Sucha Singh Vs. Appellate Tribunal, AIR 2016
(NOC) 543 (Punjab & Haryana) that appeal against the order of Tribunal
under this Act can be filed only by senior citizen and not by son and daughter
in-law against whom the order was passed.
Thus it is evident from perusal of the law laid down in case of Sucha
Singh (supra) that when daughter-in-law has been prohibited from filing an
appeal against the order of the Tribunal then daughter-in-law is included
within the scope of children as she draws her existence in the matrimonial
home from the son.
Facts
of the case of Vanitha (supra) being different are distinguishable
to the facts of the present case. However fact of the matter is that impugned
order has been passed in terms of the provision contained in Rule 19 of
Madhya Pradesh Parent and senior Citizen Maintenance and Welfare Rule
2009, which provides that District Magistrate has a duty and authority to pass
such orders so to ensure that right and property of senior citizen be secured
so that they can live their life with dignity. Thus, it is evident that impugned
order has not been passed by the Collector, District Rewa in exercise of his
authority as a tribunal under the Act of 2007 but in exercise of his duties and
power as are enumerated under Rule 19 of the Rules of 2009, therefore, I do
not find any illegality in the impugned order calling for interference, therefore
petition fails and is dismissed.
(Vivek Agarwal)
Judge
Digitally signed by
TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Date: 2021.11.22
11:15:40 +05'30'
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P No. 18686/2021
(Rachna Soni & others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & ors)
tarun/
