Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Murlidhar Soni vs Rajendra Soni on 4 January, 2022
Bench: Akil Kureshi
(1 of 3) [SAW-277/2019]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 277/2019
Murlidhar Soni S/o Late Shri Jasraj Soni, Aged About 89 Years,
R/o Singpole Upper Side Street, Jodhpur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rajendra Soni S/o Murlidhar Soni, R/o Singpole Upper
Side Street, Jodhpur.
2. Dharmendra Soni S/o Murlidhar Soni,, Aged About 47
Years, R/o B.j.s Colony, Jodhpur
3. District Collector Cum Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur.
4. Sub Division Officer Cum Tribunal, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, AAG
Mr. Himmat Singh Shekhawat
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.
The application stands disposed of accordingly.
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 277/2019:
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.
The petition was filed by the present appellant who is
senior citizen. He had instituted proceedings before the Tribunal
(2 of 3) [SAW-277/2019]
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:-
"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.
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.
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."
(3 of 3) [SAW-277/2019]
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.
It must be appreciated that the proceedings under the
Act of 2007 are summary in nature.
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.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
12-Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
