Pawan Kumar vs Shanti Devi
2021 Latest Caselaw 10930 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6844/2021

Pawan Kumar S/o Modu Ram Goswami, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Purani Abaadi, Ward No.10 New, Old 14, Near Hanuman Chowk, Shakti Nagar, Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Shanti Devi W/o Modu Ram Goswami, R/o Purani Abaadi, Ward No.10 New, Old 14, Near Hanuman Chowk, Shakti Nagar, Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).

2. Mahendra Kumar S/o Modu Ram Goswami, R/o Purani Abaadi, Ward No.10 New, Old 14, Near Hanuman Chowk, Shakti Nagar, Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Trilok Joshi



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                                     Order

15/07/2021

This writ petition is filed on behalf of the petitioner being

aggrieved with the judgment/order dated 08.03.2021 passed by

Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar on an application under

Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior

Citizens Act, 2007 preferred on behalf of the respondent No.1.

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sri Gangangar vide impugned

order has issued a direction to the petitioner and the respondent

No.2 not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the respondent

No.1 and also not to create any hindrance in her life. It is further

directed that the petitioner and respondent No.2 shall pay

Rs.3000/- each per month to the respondent No.1 from January,

2021.

(2 of 3) [CW-6844/2021]

The respondent No.1 is the mother of the petitioner and

respondent No.2 and she preferred the application under Section

23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens

Act, 2007 with the assertion that the petitioner and the

respondent No.2 are not taking her care and are not maintaining

her. It is specifically contended that the house in which petitioner

and respondents are residing is in the name of respondent No.1 as

the concerned Municipal Authority has issued a 'Patta' in her

favour.

The petitioner and the respondents have contested the said

application, however, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sri

Ganganagar after hearing the counsel for the parties has passed

the impugned order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Sub-

Divisional Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar has recorded a finding to

the effect that the house, in which, the petitioner and the

respondents are residing is owned by the respondent No.1 only. It

is submitted that as a matter of fact, the house in question was

purchased by the father of the petitioner and the respondent No.2

and all three of them are having equal share in the said house so

the finding recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sri

Ganganagar to the effect that the house is owned by the

respondent No.1 is illegal.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after

going through the material available on record, I do not find any

illegality in the above finding recorded by the Sub-Divisional

Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar as the 'Patta' in respect of the land in

question issued by the Municipal Authority is in the name of the

(3 of 3) [CW-6844/2021]

respondent No.1 only. Other findings of the impugned order have

not been challenged by the counsel for the petitioner.

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any case for

interference in this writ petition.

Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.

Stay petition also stands dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J 28-Rashi/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)