[2026:RJ-JP:2610] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19551/2024 Brijmohan Adopted S/o Late Bhivaram Bhamu, R/o Village Bhairupura Police Station Sadar Sikar Tehsil And District Sikar Raj. ----Petitioner Versus Patasi Devi W/o Late Bhivaram, Village Bhairupura Police Station Sadar Sikar Present Residence Parental Village Katrathal Tehsil And District Sikar Raj. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naveen Dhuwan For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 21/01/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 22.08.2023 passed by learned District Collector, Sikar in Appeal No.05/2019, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent-applicant was allowed and the order dated 20.08.2019 passed by learned S.D.O., Sikar in case No.07/2019 was set aside, wherein the application filed by the respondent- applicant under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned District Collector erred in passing the impugned order. He further submits that the learned District Collector erred in not taking into consideration that the respondent is receiving maintenance of Rs.5,000/- under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. as per orders passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, yet the impugned order has been passed; he therefore prays that the impugned order may kindly be set aside and the present writ petition may kindly be allowed. [2026:RJ-JP:2610] (2 of 2) [CW-19551/2024] 3. Heard and considered the submissions and perused the material available on record. 4. From perusal of the record, it is revealed that the in the application, the respondent has asserted that the present petitioner is earning around Rs.50,000/- per month by way of salary and a further sum of Rs.50,000/- per month by way of agricultural income, therefore, the income of the petitioner is around Rs.1,00,000/- per month. In response to the said contention/pleading, the petitioner has not denied the said fact rather has submitted that the petitioner has five other dependents, therefore, the respondent is not entitled for the maintenance. 5. Apart from this, from a bare perusal of the record, it is revealed that the petitioner was taken in adoption by the respondent and her husband. Further, it is also reflected that the respondent is 80 years old and suffering from Cardiac ailments and regularly taking medicines. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, if the petitioner has been directed to pay an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to his adoptive mother as maintenance, the impugned order cannot be said to be excessive, arbitrary or perverse. 6. In view of the above, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or legal infirmity in the impugned order dated 22.08.2023, accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 7. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-7