1 CGHC010448822025 2026:CGHC:38665 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5500 of 2025 1 - Smt. Leela Namdev W/o Late Shri Devi Prasad Namdev Aged About 72 Years R/o Yc-9,yash Vihar, Moti Nagar, Boriyakhurd Road, Old Dhamtari Road, District- Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Shri Amit Namdev S/o Late Shri Devi Prasad Namdev Aged About 44 Years R/o House No. 22 And 23, Moti Nagar, Boriyakhurd Road, Old Dhamtari Road, District- Raipur C.G. 2 - Appellate Tribunal Under The Provisions Of Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act, 2007 Through The Collector, Raipur C.G. 3 - Competent Authority And Sub Divisional Officer (Revene), Under The Provisions Of Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act, 2007 Through The Collector, Raipur C.G. 4 - Smt. Archana Jaiswal D/o Late Devi Prasad Namdeo, W/o Shri Ashok Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 48 Years Resident - House No. Y C - 9, Yash Vihar Moti Nagar Boriyakhurd Road Old Dhamtari Road Raipur Tehesil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Juhi Anguriya, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 4 : Ms. Shivali Dubey, Advocate. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 01/09/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “i. To kindly set aside the impugned order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority, Raipur (ANNEXURE P/1). ii. To kindly restore and uphold the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, Raipur, granting maintenance to the Petitioner and protecting her lawful share in deposits and direction may kindly be issued to immediately implement the order dated 10.01.2025. iii. To grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority, Raipur, whereby the well-reasoned order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal has been set aside, is illegal and unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the petitioner is a 72- year-old widow and a senior citizen having a limited family pension of approximately Rs.2,200/- per month and is dependent 3 upon her children for her day-to-day maintenance and medical expenses. The petitioner has been residing with her married daughter after being compelled to leave the residence of respondent No.1, her son, and the daughter is already providing her accommodation, daily necessities, physical care and medical assistance, despite having her own family responsibilities and financial liabilities. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.1 is financially well-settled and is earning approximately Rs.55,000/- per month as a Branch Manager with GRUH Finance Ltd., Raipur, and despite having sufficient means, failed to adequately maintain and care for his aged mother. The Maintenance Tribunal, after considering the circumstances of the parties, had rightly directed respondent No.1 to pay Rs.15,000/- per month towards the petitioner’s maintenance, while taking into consideration that the daughter was already providing residence and care to the petitioner. It is further submitted that although the daughter was impleaded before the Maintenance Tribunal at the instance of respondent No.1 himself, she was not impleaded in the appeal, yet the Appellate Authority has imposed liability upon her towards the maintenance and medical expenses of the petitioner, which is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel submits that the Appellate Authority has also failed to appreciate that the petitioner’s residence with her daughter is not voluntary, as she was compelled to leave the house of respondent No.1 and thereafter took shelter with her 4 married daughter. It is further contended that the four-member committee constituted by the Appellate Authority to submit a report regarding the petitioner’s maintenance claim failed to properly consider the factual circumstances and merely recorded that the petitioner was willingly residing with her daughter, without considering the fact that she had been removed from the residence of respondent No.1. Such a report demonstrates non- application of mind and has materially influenced the impugned order. Learned counsel further submits that the Appellate Authority failed to consider that the married daughter is already bearing the responsibility of maintaining the petitioner in addition to her own family obligations, and shifting further financial liability upon her would cause undue hardship. It is, therefore, submitted that the order dated 18.09.2025 deserves to be set aside and the well- considered order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, Raipur, directing respondent No.1 to pay maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month, deserves to be restored in the interest of justice and to secure a dignified life for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 opposes the writ petition and submits that the same is misconceived and not maintainable, as the petitioner seeks re-appreciation of disputed questions of fact which have already been considered by the competent authority while passing the reasoned order dated 18.09.2025 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It is submitted that respondent No.1, 5 being the son of the petitioner, has always remained concerned about her welfare and, despite having limited and fluctuating income and his own family responsibilities, has been willing to provide reasonable support to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner voluntarily chose to reside with her daughter after an unfortunate family incident and was never forcibly ousted or abandoned by respondent No.1. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not without means and has independent sources of income by way of pension, LIC interest and rental income, apart from substantial amounts received towards LIC proceeds, fixed deposits, postal savings, mutual funds and bank deposits after the demise of her husband. The petitioner is also stated to be holding substantial fixed deposits and other financial resources, which were duly disclosed before and considered by the competent authority. Learned counsel further submits that several properties were voluntarily transferred by the petitioner in favour of her daughter and respondent No.1 never objected to the same. It is contended that the allegations of wilful neglect, abuse, abandonment and exclusive financial dependency upon respondent No.1 are incorrect and contrary to the material available on record. The impugned order dated 18.09.2025 has been passed after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties and after considering the pleadings and documents on record, and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity or arbitrariness warranting 6 interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the writ petition as well as the prayer for interim relief and for upholding the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and others, 2021 15 SCC 730, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “19. A senior citizen, including a parent, who is unable to maintain themselves from their own earning or out of property owned by them, is entitled to make an application under Section 4(i). A parent or grandparent may make an application against one or more of their children. A childless senior citizen can make an application against a relative specified in Section 2(g). Section 4 recognises a corresponding obligation on the part of the children or relative to maintain a senior citizen, extending to such needs as would enable them to lead a normal life. In the case of a relative, the obligation is if they are in possession of the property of the senior citizen or would inherit property from them. Hence, in the case of the children of a senior citizen, the obligation to maintain a parent is not conditional on 7 being in possession of property of the senior citizen or upon a right of future inheritance [ “4. Maintenance of parents and senior citizens.—(1) A senior citizen including parent who is unable to maintain himself from his own earning or out of the property owned by him, shall be entitled to make an application under Section 5 in case of—(i) parent or grandparent, against one or more of his children not being a minor;(ii) a childless senior citizen, against such of his relative referred to in clause (g) of Section 2.(2) The obligation of the children or relative, as the case may be, to maintain a senior citizen extends to the needs of such citizen so that senior citizen may lead a normal life.(3) The obligation of the children to maintain his or her parent extends to the needs of such parent either father or mother or both, as the case may be, so that such parent may lead a normal life.(4) Any person being a relative of a senior citizen and having sufficient means shall maintain such senior citizen provided he is in possession of the property of such senior citizen or he would inherit the property of such senior citizen:Provided that where more than one relatives are entitled to inherit the property of a senior citizen, the maintenance shall be payable by such relative in the proportion in which they would inherit his property.”] . 8 20. The procedure to be followed by a Maintenance Tribunal (constituted under Section 7) is of a summary nature as provided in Section 8(1) and with all the powers of a civil court, as provided in Section 8(2) [ “8. Summary procedure in case of inquiry.—(1) In holding any inquiry under Section 5, the Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it deems fit.(2) The Tribunal shall have all the powers of a civil court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a civil court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).”] . Under sub- section (1) of Section 9, where a senior citizen is not able to maintain himself or herself and the children or relatives, as the case may be, neglect or refuse to maintain them, the Tribunal is empowered to order them to make a monthly allowance at such monthly rate for the maintenance of the senior citizen, as the Tribunal may deem fit [ “9. Order for maintenance.—(1) If children or relatives, as the case may be, neglect or 9 refuse to maintain a senior citizen being unable to maintain himself, the Tribunal may, on being satisfied of such neglect or refusal, order such children or relatives to make a monthly allowance at such monthly rate for the maintenance of such senior citizen, as the Tribunal may deem fit and to pay the same to such senior citizen as the Tribunal may, from time to time, direct.”] . The amount of the monthly allowance can be altered inter alia upon a change in circumstances, under Section 10 [ “10. Alteration in allowance.—(1) On proof of misrepresentation or mistake of fact or a change in the circumstances of any person, receiving a monthly allowance under Section 9, for the maintenance ordered under that section to pay a monthly allowance for the maintenance, the Tribunal may make such alteration, as it thinks fit, in the allowance for the maintenance.(2) Where it appears to the Tribunal that, in consequence of any decision of a competent civil court, any order made under Section 9 should be cancelled or varied, it shall cancel the order or, as the case may be, vary the same accordingly.”] . 6. This Court in the matter of Devendra Khanna & Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2026 SCC Online Chh 14044 has considered the vital aspect in respect of Maintenance under Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens 10 Act, 2007 has held that senior citizen is entitled for maintenance. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon perusal of the records as well as the material available on record, it is evident that the appellant senior citizen (mother) is presently residing with her daughter the respondent No. 5 herein, who is taking due care of her day-to-day needs. Having regard to the overall circumstances of the parties and the financial aspects of respondent No. 1 involved, this Court is of the considered view that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned Maintenance Tribunal and subsequently considered by the Appellate Tribunal requires reconsideration. The parties are also agreed that if some reasonable amount is fixed by this Court then they will abide by the order passed by this Court. Accordingly, while maintaining the entitlement of the senior citizen petitioner to receive maintenance, the amount of monthly maintenance is hereby reduced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month. 8. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat