← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/18342/2022disposed of

Sukhdev Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others

2025-04-04Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-18342-2022 (O&M) Decided on :04.04.2025 SUKHDEV SINGH . .Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI PRESENT: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Akshita Chauhan, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Siddharth Gupta, Advocate for respondents NO. 4 & 5.

**** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral) 1.

In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 17.05.2022/25.05.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by the appellate Authority envisaged under the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizen Act, 2007, by which, the maintenance to be granted to the petitioner has been reduced from Rs. 7000/- to Rs. 3000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being a senior citizen has no other income for his sustenance and it is very difficult to survive in these time with only Rs.3000/- per month, as a means for survival hence, the order passed by the Appellate Authority fixing the financial maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month be set-aside and order dated 07.09.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Tribunal envisaged under 2007 Act fixing maintenance as Rs. 7,000/- per month be maintained. 3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that respondent No. 4 is paying separate maintenance to his mother and father, as Rs. 4000/-per month is being paid to his mother and Rs. 3,000/- as maintenance which has been fixed by the Appellate Authority is being paid to father by the respondent.

RIYA 2025.04.08 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-18342-2022 (O&M) -24.

Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that respondent No. 4 does not have regular job and he is working as a clerk with an Advocate and his income is such that he has not only to maintain his family and children but his old parents also, hence, whatever appropriate financial maintenance should be paid to the parents he is ready to deposit the same.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file with their able assistance. 6.

Once, a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month is being paid by respondent No. 4 to his mother, the same amount should be paid to his father also as there is no difference between a father and a mother for the grant of the financial assistance/maintenance. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that respondent No. 4 accepts that he will pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month to his father as well starting from January, 2025 onwards. 7.

Let the arrears on account of the same starting from January, 2025 onwards be paid to the senior citizen and henceforth, by 7th day of every month, the sum of Rs. 4,000/- will be deposited by respondent No. 4 in the account of his father.

8.

The present petition is disposed of in the above terms and by modifying the impugned order dated 17.05.2022/25.05.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Appellate Authority.

9.

Civil miscellaneous application pending if any, also stands disposed of.

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 04.04.2025 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No RIYA 2025.04.08 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document