[2025:RJ-JP:3385] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 405/2025 1. Govardhan Nagwan S/o Late Mahendra Kumar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o- Plot Number 21 Maruti Nagar E, Jaipuriyo Ki Baadh, Hatoj Phatak, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Mitali W/o Govardhan Nagwan, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Plot Number 21 Maruti Nagar E, Jaipuriyo Ki Baadh, Hatoj Phatak, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus Smt. Premlata Devi W/o Late- Mahendra Kumar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Plot Number 21 Maruti Nagar E, Jaipuriyo Ki Baadh, Hatoj Phatak, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddhant Singh For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 23/01/2025 This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10.10.2024 passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Jaipur (Appellate Tribunal) whereby, an appeal no.41/2024 preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal has been rejected as not maintainable. Relying upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Smt. Rekha Agarwal Vs. Union of India and Others: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16743/2018 decided on 03.08.2021, a Single Bench judgement of this Court dated 01.05.2023 in the case of Maya Devi and Others Vs. Vishweshwar Dayal and Others: Civil Writ Petition No.11941/2021 and other connected matters which was upheld [2025:RJ-JP:3385] (2 of 3) [CW-405/2025] by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.05.2023 in the case of Kamaljeet Singh Vs. Ummed Singh and Another: D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.471/2023, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an appeal under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (for brevity, ‘Act of 2007’) is maintainable even at behest of the children/wards. Heard. Considered. In the case of Smt. Rekha Agarwal (supra), it was held as under:- “Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in terms of decision given by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Paramjit Kumar Saroya’s case (supra). Consequently, the petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal under Section 16 of the Act and Section 17 would not come in the way of the petitioner to seek legal representation.” This view has been affirmed by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kamaljeet Singh (supra). In view of the law laid down by the Division Benches of this Court, this Court does not find the order impugned dated 10.10.2024 to be sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in following terms without issuing notice to the respondent to obviate further delay and not to enburden her with unnecessary litigation expenses. “(i) The order dated 10.10.2024 is quashed and set aside. [2025:RJ-JP:3385] (3 of 3) [CW-405/2025] (ii) The matter is remanded back to the District Collector and District Magistrate, Jaipur to decide the appeal no.41/2024 on its merit.” Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J PRAGATI/33