KESAR DEVI W/O LATE SH. MOTILAL BAIRWA v. GUDDI DEVI W/O NAND KISHORE BAIRWA
WMAP/82/2025 · 2025-05-15
Anoop Kumar Dhand
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 16749 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 16749 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:20655] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 82/2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17020/2024 Kesar Devi W/o Late Sh. Motilal Bairwa, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Plot No. C-43, Tirupati Balaji Nagar, Bairwa Colony, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus
1. Guddi Devi W/o Nand Kishore Bairwa, R/o Plot No. C-43, Tirupati Balaji Nagar, Bairwa Colony, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Another Address- Plot No. 185, Krishna Vihar Colony, Near Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur, Dist. - Jaipur
2. Nand Kishore Bairwa S/o Late Sh. Motilal Bairwa, R/o Plot No. C-43, Tirupati Balaji Nagar, Bairwa Colony, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Another Address - Plot No. 185, Krishna Vihar Colony, Near Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur, Dist. - Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ashish Poonia JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order 15/05/2025
1. By way of filing this miscellaneous application, the petitioner is seeking implementation of the order dated 11.11.2024 passed by this Court while deciding her S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17020/2024.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a senior citizen and she submitted an application under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
[2025:RJ-JP:20655] (2 of 3) [WMAP-82/2025] Act, 2007 (for short, “the Act of 2007”) before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaipur (for short, “the SDO”) on 19.03.2024 and after service, when the case was posted for final arguments several times, but final arguments were not heard in between 14.05.2024 till 15.10.2025 and in the intervening period, the matter was posted from one date to another, hence, under these compelling circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing the said petition, seeking appropriate direction for expeditious disposal of the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 23 of the Act of 2007. Counsel submits that considering the above material aspect of the matter, this Court vide order dated 11.11.2024 passed a clear and specific direction to the SDO to expedite the hearing of the matter and make all possible endavours to decide the said application expeditiously preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the aforesaid order. Counsel submits that the aforesaid order was presented before the SDO and the same was taken on record on 25.11.2024. Thereafter, several dates have been posted by the SDO in the aforesaid matter, i.e., 09.12.2024, 16.12.2024, 30.12.2024, 13.01.2025, 21.01.2025, 27.01.2025, 03.02.2025, 10.02.2025, 24.02.2025, 17.03.2025, 25.03.2025, 01.04.2025 & 22.04.2025, but in spite of passing of considerable time, the order passed by this Court has not been complied with, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that this Court while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17020/2024 has passed a
[2025:RJ-JP:20655] (3 of 3) [WMAP-82/2025] clear and specific direction to the SDO to speed up the proceedings of the pending application and decide the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the aforesaid order. The aforesaid order was made available to the Court below was taken on record on 25.11.2024, but in spite of that, the matter was deferred from one date to another and till date, the application submitted by the petitioner has not been decided by the Court below. 4.
The instant writ petition stands disposed of by reiterating the same direction to the SDO to decide the pending application within a period of one month from today. 5. It is made clear that if the order passed by this Court is not complied with by the Court below, the same would be viewed seriously and appropriate orders would be passed in case of non- compliance of this order. 6. With the aforesaid direction, the application stands disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /60