` SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPMS No.3273 of 2025 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Karan Anand, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking the following reliefs:- “i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of the mandamus, to expedite the case no 28 of 2024-2025 tilted as “Shri Suchha Singh Vs. Smt. Seema Chawla and another” under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, hereinafter referred as “Senior Citizen Act of 2007” pending in the court of Assistant District Magistrate (Judicial) Sadar, Dehra Dun, within some stipulated period of time, otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury which could not be compensated by any other means.” 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that an application for maintenance has been moved by the petitioner against his daughter and a son-in-law which has been registered as Case No.28 of 2024, Shri Scuhha Singh Vs. Smt. Seema Chawla and another, in the court of learned Additional District Magistrate, Dehradun. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he wants this matter to be decided expeditiously and for that a direction is sought by him from this Court to that extent. 5. Attention of this Court has been drawn to Section 5 sub-section 4 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), to contend that such an application should have been decided by the court within a period of 90 days from the date of service of notice of the application to such a person and further only one month time can be extended, therefore, 2 it is submitted that only within a maximum period of four months such an application should have been decided. 6. I have perused the provision of law which has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Having gone through the provision of sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the Act, this Court is of the view that this section is applicable only, in case an application under sub- Section 5(2) of the Act is made for monthly allowance for maintenance and expenses of the proceeding during the pendency of the proceedings and not for the main petition, under Section 4 of the Act, therefore the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived and the same deserves to be rejected. 8. Accordingly writ petition stands dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 26.11.2025 SK