← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/27611/2022dismissed

Satyavir Singh v. District Magistrate Cum Appellate Tribunal Charkhi Dadri And Others

2025-05-05Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-27611-2022 (O&M) Decided on : 05.05.2025 SATYAVIR SINGH ..PETITIONER

Versus

DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHARKHI DADRI AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI PRESENT: Mr. Amarjit Beniwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. K. Sharma, Advocate for Mr. R. A. Sheoran, Advocate for respondent No. 3. **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral) 1.

In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 31.08.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2, by which an application filed by the petitoner under Sections 4, 5 and 23 of the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (hereinafter for short '2007 Act') has been dismissed. Further challenge of the petitioner is to the impugned order dated 20.07.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No. 1 by which, the appeal filed by the petitoner has also been dismissed by the appellate authority.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-senior citizen submits that the petitioner-senior citizen had filed a claim before the authorities concerned under 2007 Act against his son and both the authorities decided against the

CWP-27611-2022 (O&M) -2petitioner-senior citizen and the present petition has been filed by the petitioner-senior citizen challenging both the orders 31.08.2021 (Annexure P-1) and 20.07.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by the authorities concerned so as to grant the relief under 2007 Act.

3.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the son of the petitioner-senior citizen against whom the claim was raised by the senior citizens has already died. Learned counsel for respondents further submits that respondent No. 3-Saroj is the widow-daughter-in-law and respondent No. 5 is the minor grandson of the petitioner-senior citizen and no claim can be raised by the petitioner-senior citizen against his daughter-in-law and the minor grandson.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitoner on the other hand does not disputing the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents recorded herein above.

5.

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

Once, the son of the petitioner-senior citizen has already died and no claim can be raised by the petitioner-senior citizen against his daughter-in-law or his minor grandchildren under the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizen Act, 2007, which fact has also not been rebutted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, hence, n 



  

           

  



 

 7.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

8.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that liberty be given

CWP-27611-2022 (O&M) -3to the petitioner to avail any other remedy. 9.

In case, any such remedy is available with the petitioner, the petitioner can avail the said remedy subject to fulfillment of the requisite of any such remedy against the respondents.

Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of.

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 05.05.2025 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No