Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29871-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2889 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Anant Narayan Singh,Arun Kumar Srivastava,C.S.C. Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs : "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by respondent No.2 under Section 7(1) of U.P. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007. ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order." 3. Respondent No.3 was married to Smt. Sushila Devi and the property belonged to Sushila Devi. After Sushila Devi died, the property was inherited by the petitioner No.1, his brother-Arun Kumar Singh, the husband of the deceased-Surendra Bahadur Singh and her daughter-Babita. It appears that between the family members, there was an agreement that the property of Surendra Bahadur Singh would be enjoyed by Arun Kumar Singh and the property of Babita would be enjoyed by Ajay Kumar Singh. It appears that the respondent No.3 felt that Ajay Kumar Singh along with his wife Neelima had desired the ouster of the respondent No.3 from the property in which Surendra Bahadur Singh was living. Aggrieved by this act of his son Ajay Kumar Singh and his daughter-in-law Nileema Singh, the respondent No. 3 filed an application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 for getting the appropriate relief. This application now when has been decided by the District Magistrate, Varanasi, the instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.12.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the application was filed by the respondent No.3 on 13.07.2024, an objection was filed by the son, i.e. the petitioner No.1 and his wife the petitioner No.2 and in it, they had stated that apart from the landed property which the respondent No.3 had given to the other son of the respondent No.3, namely, Arun, Rs. 25 Lakhs had also been given which the respondent No.3 had got by way of retiral benefits and, therefore, he has submitted that when the District Magistrate was deciding the case,he did not, despite there being a specific averment of the petitioners in this regard did not return any finding. He therefore states that the order by the District Magistrate was erroneous in law. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 however has submitted that whatever was done by the father i.e. the respondent No.3 vis a vis the other brother Arun was not a matter which was to be considered by the District Magistrate in the proceedings under the Act of 2007. What had only to be seen was as to whether the petitioners were allowing the respondent No. 3 to live in his portion of the house respectfully and peacefully. 6. In the instant case, the District Magistrate has definitely found that the respondent No.3 was entitled to live in the half of the premises of the house No. N12/405-H Shivratanpur, Bajardiha, District Varanasi. 7. No interference thus is warranted in the findings arrived at by the District Magistrate. 8. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Karan (Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, J.) (Siddhartha Varma, J.) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad