( 1 ) 912 WP 12348 OF 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 912 WRIT PETITION NO. 12348 OF 2024 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9094 OF 2026 IN WP/12348/2024 BHAGIRATHI BABURAO WADEKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS ... Mr. R. B. Dhakane h/f. Mr. M. R. Andhale, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. B. V. Virdhe, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 – State Mr. A. M. Inamdar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 to 7 … CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATE : 02.09.2026 PER COURT :- CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9094 OF 2026 IN WP/12348/2024 . Vide the present Civil Application, prayer is made to allow production of certain documents namely the application filed before the Sub Divisional Officer at Ambajogai, Dist. Beed and the copy of rent agreement. 2. Mr. R. B. Dhakane h/f. Mr. M. R. Andhale, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that these documents are sought to be submitted before this Court pursuant to the observation made by this Court in earlier order. 3. Mr. A. M. Inamdar, learned Advocate for the respondents would fairly offers his no objection to allow the application. 2026:BHC-AUG:40285 ( 2 ) 912 WP 12348 OF 2024 4. For the reasons stated in the application, the same stands allowed. 5. The documents sought to be produced at prayer Clause “B” of the application are taken on record and shall be read as part of the writ petition. WRIT PETITION NO. 12348 OF 2024 6. The peculiar facts of the case are that the petitioner is a 77 years old widow and issueless lady. During the lifetime of her deceased husband, he had adopted one Avinash as their son. Respondent No.4 is the widow of Avinash and respondent Nos.5 to 7 are the children of Avinash. Respondent Nos.4 to 7 were residing at Pune on account of their job. During the period of Covid-19, they left Pune and came to Ambajogai. After their arrival at Ambajogai, respondent No.4 is reported to have joined service as a Nurse at Lokhandi Savargaon. Against this backdrop, differences cropped up between the petitioner and her adopted daughter-in-law which gave rise to proceedings under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 filed by the petitioner. The said application was partly allowed and instead of directing respondent Nos.4 to 7 to vacate the residential house owned by the petitioner, the first authority divided a portion of the said property for the residence of the respective parties. 7. Feeling dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner approached the competent authority i.e. respondent No.3. However, without considering ( 3 ) 912 WP 12348 OF 2024 the merits of the matter, the competent authority merely remanded the matter back to the first authority. Again, the first authority passed almost the same order except by giving a description of the area that should be shared by the respective parties. As against this, the petitioner is before this Court. 8. It is reported that on issuance of notice, nobody appeared for the respondents and hence Mr. A. M. Inamdar, learned Advocate is engaged by this Court to represent respondent Nos.4 to 7. An affidavit-in-reply is filed under the signature of one Ganesh Jidge who happened to be Naib Tahsildar Ambajogai. Surprisingly this deponent for no reasons has challenged the merits of the petitioner’s application by pointing out her financial ability and also alleging discrepancies in the application and the writ petition. Such stand taken by the government authority is contrary to the practice and experience. 9. May it be, considering the controversy, some points are evident : (i) the subject matter house is a self-earned property of the petitioner (ii) the said property was never transferred by the petitioner to respondent Nos.4 to 7 out of the relationship and particularly on the backdrop of the death of Avinash, the petitioner allowed respondent Nos.4 to 7 to reside with her. While the Act of 2007 provides balance of convenience in favour of the applicant like the petitioner, the authorities have divided the said property between the parties. ( 4 ) 912 WP 12348 OF 2024 10. Today when the matter was called, Mr. R. B. Dhakane h/f. Mr. M. R. Andhale, learned Advocate would fairly submit that she is even ready to settle the matter with her daughter-in-law. It is pointed out that respondent No.4 herself is an earning member while the petitioner is also residing a meagre pension. She would submit that respondent No.4 is even not allowing the petitioner to enter in her own house, and she is constrained to stay at some other place, that too on rent basis. 11. In view of this, I deem it appropriate to issue notice to respondent Nos.4 to 7 for final disposal of the writ petition. However, in the peculiar facts of the case, the Court notice be served through the concerned Police Station. 12. Notice is made returnable on 30.09.2026. 13. The respondent Nos.4 to 7 are directed to remain present before this Court on the next date. [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] PRW