10-WP-1139-2024.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1139 OF 2024 Bhausaheb Anil Belure And Another VERSUS Kamalbai Anil Belure *** • Mr. V. D. Salunke, Advocate for the Petitioners • Mr. K. V. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent *** CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J DATE : MAY 05, 2025 PER COURT : 1. This Petition takes exception to the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer/Maintenance Tribunal (for short ‘SDO’) confirmed by the Collector, Osmanabad in Appeal under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. Petitioner is an Advocate. Respondent is his mother and a senior citizen. Respondent filed proceedings before the SDO/Maintenance Tribunal under the provisions of the Act for seeking direction of payment of monthly maintenance so also injunction against Petitioner. This proceeding came to be filed on 07.06.2022. Petitioner appeared before the SDO and Umesh PAGE 1 OF 6 2025:BHC-AUG:13272 10-WP-1139-2024.odt sought time to file reply, however, on the next date of hearing he remained absent. Hence, the proceeding was closed on 05.07.2022 for judgment. SDO passed judgment allowing application directing sum of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid as monthly maintenance to the Applicant/Senior Citizen. Similarly, injunction was issued against Respondent/Petitioner herein restraining him from entering in Plot Nos. 7 and 8 on Survey No. 211 without permission of senior citizen. Petitioner took exception to the said order by preferring Appeal under Section 16 of the Act before Collector. In this Appeal, Petitioner has drawn attention of the Appellate Authority to the various relevant facts including the fact that Respondent is residing along with her husband i.e., father of the Petitioner who is retired from Government employment and is earning pension. There is also allegation in respect of the subject property being mortgaged in order to obtain loan for the elder brother of Petitioner. On these amongst other contentions, order passed by the SDO is sought to be set aside. The Collector, Osmanabad by order dated 20.12.2022 rejected the Appeal with following observations: 1- xSjvtZnkj deyckbZ vfuy nRrksck csyqjs ;kaps o; 75 o"ksZ vlwu rs Umesh PAGE 2 OF 6 10-WP-1139-2024.odt Lor%pk mnjfuokZg pkyow 'kd.kkj ukghr- 2- rlsp xSjvtZnkj Lor%pk pfjrkFkZ pkyfo.kslkBh vleFkZ vkgsr- rlsp ok/kZD;keqGs R;kaph dkGth ?ks.ks vko';d vkgs- mijksDr ckcha fopkjkr ?ksrk mifoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh mLekukckn ;kauh ikjhr dsysyk vkns'kkr glr{ksi dj.;kph vko';drk ulY;kP;k fu"d"kZi;Zar vkyks vlwu eh] MkW- lfpu vksEckls] ftYgkf/kdkjh] mLekukckn [kkyhyizek.ks vkns'k ikjhr dfjr vkgs- vkns'k 1- vfiykFkhZ ;kaps vfiy ukeatqj dj.;kr ;srs- 2- mifoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh] mLekukckn ;kapk vkns'k dzekad 2022@ts-uk- U;k@dkfo&205 fn- 23@07@2022 dk;e Bso.;kr ;srks- 3- loZ laca/khrkauk dGoqu izdj.k can dj.;kr ;srs- 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners on amongst other submissions has raised objection to the order impugned which according to him does not record any reason for rejecting the Appeal. It is his contention that the Appeal memo contains several issues raised by the Appellant which are not dealt with by the Appellate Authority. Apart from this, is is sought to be argued that Respondent has suppressed material facts in the application filed before the SDO/Maintenance Tribunal about her other son so also the income received by her husband. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has sought to refer section 4(4) of the Act which according to him contemplated that in case the senior citizen is unable to maintain himself, order of maintenance can be Umesh PAGE 3 OF 6 10-WP-1139-2024.odt granted. It is submission by referring to the documents which are placed in support of the Petition that this is not the case wherein the Respondent is unable to maintain herself and hence, order of maintenance could be directed. Grievance is also made in respect of non compliance of order passed by this Court permitting the Petitioner to occupy first floor of the subject premises. 4. Learned Counsel for Respondent supported the impugned orders. According to him, it is the duty and responsibility of the children to maintain their parents. By referring to Section 4(1)(i) of the Act, it is contended that an application can be filed against one or more children of the senior citizen. It is his submission that non filing of the application against other son will not come in way of the Respondent to seek relief under the Act. In support of his submissions, he sought to place reliance on the complaints made by the father of the Petitioner against Petitioner with concerned police. 5. Prima facie perusal of the record indicates that the Respondent while making application before the Umesh PAGE 4 OF 6 10-WP-1139-2024.odt Maintenance Tribunal has not disclosed the fact that she is having another son. Similarly, there is no mention in the application about pension earned by her husband. It is primary duty of the Applicant to satisfy the Authority that he/she is unable to maintain herself in order to seek recourse of provisions of the Act. Apart from this, even accepting the allegation of Respondent to be true that the Petitioner is an Advocate himself has not appeared before the SDO but he filed Appeal before the Collector mentioning all relevant facts. In such circumstances, while exercising the powers of the Appellate Authority, it was necessary for the Collector to take into consideration the said issues and to record findings thereon. As recorded herein above, the Collector has passed order without dealing with the issues sought to be raised by the Appellant. The entire order only reproduces the oral and written submissions. The order passed by the Collector sans any reason and hence, cannot sustain. 6. Though it was open for this Court to relegate the matter back to the Collector for decision afresh, however, in view of the fact that the Respondent in the Umesh PAGE 5 OF 6 10-WP-1139-2024.odt Original Application before the SDO has not referred to other relevant facts, hence, it would be in the interest of the parties that the orders impugned are set aside. Hence, impugned orders are set aside. Proceeding is relegated back to the SDO/Maintenance Tribunal for decision afresh. SDO to give liberty of amendment to the application if Respondent herein so desires. Reasonable opportunity be given to the Petitioner to file reply. 7. In order to ensure that there is no further delay in hearing of the said application and decision thereof, SDO is directed to decide said application within a period three months from 09.05.2025. Both parties are directed to appear before the SDO on 09.05.2025. No separate notices shall be issued to the parties. 8. It is clarified that if any party remains absent on the date of hearing, it is open for the SDO to proceed further with the matter. 9. Petition stands disposed of in above terms. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) Umesh PAGE 6 OF 6