IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 3 WRIT PETITION NO. 12653 OF 2022 Vitthal Baburao Shelke VERSUS The District Collector Alias Magistrate Osmanabad And Others ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Patil Sujit Anilrao AGP for Respondents-State: Mr. S. K. Shirse Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. R. F. Totala, Vedant Kabra i/b Mr. Rahul Totala. … CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. Dated : September 23, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. The petitioner had initially instituted proceedings under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and Rules 2010, before the Sub-Divisional Officer against his son, who is the respondent. The said proceeding is registered as Case No.2021/Sankirna/J.Na.Nya./Kavi-75. 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer has dismissed the said application vide order dated 04/10/2021. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Magistrate, Osmanabad, being Appeal Sanchika Kra.2021/Sa.Pra./Sakinrna/Kavi-1960, which was dismissed vide order dated 12/09/2022. The present petition is filed in order to challenge the said concurrent orders. 3. The subject matter of the dispute is the residential house, which Page 1 of 4 2026:BHC-AUG:43451 3 CP 12653-2022 was also the subject matter of Civil Suit No.269 of 2012. The said civil suit was disposed of in view of a compromise between the parties and a compromise decree was recorded on 03/05/2012. Under the said compromise decree, the petitioner and his wife, i.e. the father and mother of the respondent, had relinquished their rights over the suit property in favour of the respondent. 4. The petitioner thereafter filed Special Civil Suit No.55 of 2021 in order to challenge the said compromise decree. In the said civil suit, the respondent moved an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application for rejection of plaint came to be allowed vide order dated 07/07/2022 passed by the learned 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad. The petitioner has preferred an appeal challenging the order of rejection of plaint, which is registered as Regular Civil Appeal No.71 of 2021 and is pending for adjudication before the learned Appellate Court. 5. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and Rules 2010, seeking, amongst other reliefs, cancellation of the compromise decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.269 of 2012. Apart from this, a prayer is made that the respondent should not create any obstruction in the enjoyment of the property by the Page 2 of 4 3 CP 12653-2022 petitioner. 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer has rejected the said application vide order dated 04/10/2021. Perusal of the order would demonstrate that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer has dismissed the application, inter alia, on the ground that the dispute arises out of the compromise decree arrived at between the parties in the civil suit. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which is also dismissed by the District Magistrate, Osmanabad. The learned Appellate Authority has recorded that the petitioner has not made any prayer for maintenance in the application and that the foundation of the prayers is the prayer for cancellation of the compromise decree which relief can be granted only by the learned concerned Court. 8. Perusal of the application would indicate that although there are allegations of harassment at the hands of the respondent, the allegations of ill-treatment and harassment are vague and wanting in material particulars, such as the date and time. The suit property is situated at Osmanabad, whereas the respondent is residing at Islampur, in District Sangli. 9. Apart from this, the foundation of the prayer in the application Page 3 of 4 3 CP 12653-2022 is the principal prayer for cancellation of the compromise decree, for which a substantive civil suit was filed, in which the plaint has already been rejected and the appeal is pending. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid, in my considered opinion, no case for interference with the well-reasoned orders passed by both the authorities is made out. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ) vj gawade/-. Page 4 of 4