JUDGMENT : J.K. Ranka, J. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner Shankar Lal assailing the order dated 28.06.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer-Cum-Maintenance Tribunal, Gogunda and the order dated 15.01.2013 passed by the District Collector, Udaipur whereby the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,500/- per month to his father namely, Rodi Lal who had filed an application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with the plea that he is an aged person and is not in a position to sustain himself in view of the abnormal costs of each and every item. A claim of Rs.5,000/- per month was made, however, the Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the claim of Rs.2,500/- per month as well as the payment of arrears of amount from the date of filing of the application. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, an appeal was preferred before the District Collector, Udaipur, who is the appellate authority. The District Collector, Udaipur has upheld the maintenance amount of Rs.2,500/-, however, directed that both the brothers namely Shanker Lal and Devi Lal to provide one room house as also the aforesaid amount including the demand of arrears. With the aforesaid direction, the appeal was disposed of. Aggrieved thereby, the instant writ petition has been filed assailing the aforesaid orders. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not in a position to maintain even himself and his family members, therefore, he is unable to contribute amount to his father as directed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer and District Collector. He has submitted that even the petitioner has no arrangement for his residential house and therefore, when it is not possible for himself to maintain then there is no justification for directing the petitioner to pay an amount which is beyond his means. He has further submitted that there is no justification for coming to the conclusion of Rs.2,500/- per month which is even otherwise abnormal and unjustified. It has further been submitted that the father of petitioner was having substantial agricultural land and after death of his grand father, substantial land came to the share of the respondent (father) and therefore, he has proper means to maintain himself. Accordingly, he has pleaded for reversal of the aforesaid orders. 3. It has further been submitted that the father of petitioner was having substantial agricultural land and after death of his grand father, substantial land came to the share of the respondent (father) and therefore, he has proper means to maintain himself. Accordingly, he has pleaded for reversal of the aforesaid orders. 3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have perused the impugned order and other material available on record and at the outset, it would be appropriate to refer to the statement of objects and reasons by which the aforesaid Act came Into force on 29.12.2007 and the same was published in the official gazette on 31.12.2007. The objects and reasons are as under: "Statement of Objects and Reasons: Traditional norms and values of the Indian society laid stress on providing care for the elderly. However, due to withering of the joint family system, a large number of elderly are not being looked after by their family. Consequently, many older persons, particularly widowed women are now forced to spend their twilight years all alone and are exposed to emotional neglect and to lack of physical and financial support. This clearly reveals that ageing has become a major social challenge and there is a need to give more attention to the care and protection for the older persons. Though the parents can claim maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the procedure is both time consuming as well as expensive. Hence, there is a need to have simple, inexpensive and speedy provisions to claim maintenance for parents. 2. The bill purposes to cast an obligation on the persons who inherit the property of their aged relatives to maintain such aged relatives and also proposes to make provisions for setting up old age homes for providing maintenance to the indigent older persons. The Bill further proposes to provide better medical facilities to the senior citizen and provisions for protection of their life and property. 3. The Bill, therefore, proposes to provide for: (a) appropriate mechanism to be set-up to provide need-based maintenance to the parents and senior citizens; (b) providing better medical facilities to senior citizens; (c) for institutionalisation of a suitable mechanism for protection of life and property of older persons; (d) setting-up of old age homes in every district. 4. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives." 4. 4. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives." 4. This Act came into force in the State of Rajasthan on 01.08.2008. The statement of objects and reasons clearly demonstrates that law has come into force about maintenance of the parents who brought up arid settled the children and now on account of different considerations were left by the children or relatives and the parents who on account of age, healthy, infirmity and for other reasons were not able to maintain themselves and who have been discarded by the children. The Act addresses the need arising from the unfortunate plight which many elderly persons and senior citizens have to suffer on account of thinning of families. 5. The term 'maintenance' and other expressions such as 'needs of such citizen' and 'may lead normal life' and 'unable to maintain himself as well as other factors and provisions under the Act has to be understood and has to be construed in the light of the object of the Act as reproduced hereinabove so as to advance the intention of legislature and object of the Act. The term maintenance is defined under Section 2(b) and it includes provision for food, clothing, residence, medical attendance and treatment. Maintenance has been defined in wider term and not in a narrow sense, it covers all the basic needs of an individual particularly a senior citizen. Maintenance also suggests and clarifies senior citizens to be protected from emotional neglect and lack of financial and physical support and to set up proper mechanism to ensure that the said objects are achieved by simple, inexpensive and speedy system. Therefore the Act brought radical change in the system and on an application moved by the parents before the appropriate authority, order was to be passed within a limited time frame so that the applicant gets some amount to maintain themselves (parents). The amount has also been fixed to be paid by the children. It is also mentioned in the Act that not only cash amount would be paid but also the children will provide reasonable accommodation to the parents so that they can lead their lives in a befitting manner. 6. In Parmar Dahyabhai Hemabhai v. Parmar Prakashbhai Dahyabhai & 1 Another [Special Civil Application No.4038/2011 decided on 04.03.2013], the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has dealt with the similar issue. 6. In Parmar Dahyabhai Hemabhai v. Parmar Prakashbhai Dahyabhai & 1 Another [Special Civil Application No.4038/2011 decided on 04.03.2013], the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has dealt with the similar issue. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under: "13.7 The said Section 4 of the Act further prescribes that the obligation of the children or the relative to maintain parent or senior citizen also extends to the 'needs' of parent's or senior citizens so that he/they may lead a 'normal life' and the conferment of the right to claim maintenance under the Act is not restricted qua only biological or adopted children/grand children but it is also extended, in specified cases, qua relative/s as well. 13.8 Moreover, the obligation is not restricted only to provide bare minimum maintenance but the Act imposes obligation to also provide 'all needs' of such citizen so that he may lead a 'normal life', and to also provide food, clothings, residence, medical attendance and treatment. 13.9 The expression 'lead a normal life' also has wide connotation and meaning and the legislature has advisedly used the said expression with such wide connotation. 13.10 Leading normal life would include all requirements of parents, i.e. physical needs as well as emotional needs. 13.11 The expressions 'all needs' in conjunction with 'normal life' also lend wide meaning & scope which imply and include obligation to maintain parents/senior citizen so that he may be able to lead normal life which is not uncared for and lonely or short or drudgery compelling the parent/s or senior citizen/s to drag themselves and to beg for every little requirement of life including medicines, treatment, etc. and also implies obligation to provide care and attendance in a manner where they are not neglected or left without attendance. Therefore competent authority can also pass order restraining the children from ill-treating or abusing or emotionally neglecting senior citizen/parents. 14. Having regard to the provision under Sections 2(b), 2(d), 2(h), 4 and the object of the Act, the expression 'to lead normal life' has wide connotation and should receive liberal construction. The provisions under Section 4 and Section 9 should be construed and give effect so as to ensure that the children or relative provide 'maintenance' to parents/senior citizens (who are unable to maintain themselves from their own earning/income) as contemplated by the Act. The provisions under Section 4 and Section 9 should be construed and give effect so as to ensure that the children or relative provide 'maintenance' to parents/senior citizens (who are unable to maintain themselves from their own earning/income) as contemplated by the Act. The expression 'all needs to lead normal life' should not be and cannot be read and construed in pedantic manner, but must be construed in such a way that would advance and serve the object of the Act. It is the duty and obligation of the authorities under the Act to give effect to the intention of the legislature and the object of the Act while considering and deciding the applications preferred under the Act. 15. According to the provisions under Section 4 of the Act, if a senior citizen including parent who is unable to maintain himself with regard to food and/or clothing and/or residence and/or medical attendance and/or medical treatment from his own earning, then he can make an application to claim 'maintenance' - as contemplated under Section 2(b) against one or more of his children (not being a minor) or from any relative (if such senior citizen is child less). 16....... 17...... 18...... 19. 1.... 19. 2.... 19. 3.... 19. 4.... 19.5 The meaning, scope and effect or object of the provisions under Sections 2(b) and 4 are not duly and properly considered and have not been appreciated by the authorities in light of object of the Act. Having regard to the object of the Act and the intention of the legislature, there is no justification, or even indication in the Act, to restrict the meaning and scope of the provision under section 4 of the Act in light of section 9 and the limit of amount of allowance fixed under section 9 of the Act. The limit fixed under, and for the purpose of, section 9 of the Act is only for the purpose of limiting the power of the authority to award maintenance and to limit the extent of amount which can be awarded but the said limit cannot govern or restrict section 4 and/or right senior citizen/parents to maintain application for maintenance if he is 'not able to maintain himself from his earning'. 19.6.... 19.7….. 19.8….. 19.6.... 19.7….. 19.8….. 19.9 What is required to be considered by the authority Is as to whether with his own income the applicant is able to maintain himself in such a way that he can lead normal life as contemplated under section 4. If the applicant can satisfy the competent authority that having regard to his requirements to lead normal life as contemplated under section 4 of the Act, his income is insufficient and he needs more amount/assistance from his children so that he can maintain himself and lead normal life, then the competent authority would be obliged to award (upon being satisfied about the requirement for more amount than the income of the applicant) further amount towards maintenance allowance and it is at this stage that the limitation as regards the extent of amount of maintenance allowance fixed under section 9 of the Act will come in operation because the amount to be awarded as maintenance allowance (upon being satisfied that the applicant is unable to maintain himself from his earning) will be subject to, and cannot be more than, the pecuniary limit prescribed under section 9 of the Act. 19.10.. 19.11 An illustration would clarify and demonstrate this aspect. If total income/earning of an applicant is more than the pecuniary limit under section 9 of the Act, but at the same time the said applicant is also a patient of serious ailment and he is undergoing such treatment which involves considerable expenses towards medical treatment and attendance (expenses towards medicine and treatment, etc.) and such expenses are more than the pecuniary limit prescribed under section 9 of the Act and are equal to more than his total income/earnings (which are, incidentally more than the limit under section 9), then the competent authority cannot refuse to entertain an application made under section 4 of the Act and to pass appropriate direction against the opponent/children to pay such further/additional amount, subject to the limit prescribed under section 9 of the Act, to the applicant so as to enable him to 'lead normal life' and/or to meet the expenses towards medical treatment and attendance. In such circumstances, the requirement/need of the applicant to lead normal life may be more than his income (though his income may be more than the limit under section 9 of the Act), it is necessary to clarify that this is only one instance or situation which may occur but there could be many situations or circumstances wherein, the applicant might have income/earning which could be more than pecuniary limit under Section 9 of the Act but the parent/senior citizen may not be able to maintain himself and may not be able to lead normal life or his medical requirements from his own income/earning on account of unavoidable and compelling financial obligations/needs." 7. Considering the objects and reasons, I am of the firm view that both the Courts have given specific finding which is most reasonable and only an amount of Rs.2,500/-has been directed to be paid to the respondent-father which appears to be not at all excessive or abnormal in the present state of affairs. Well living standards have gone up and it would be difficult for one to maintain his livelihood or even the basic needs in the amount which has been granted in the instant case. 8. The trial court while allowing the amount of Rs.2,500/- per month has considered the needs and requirements to lead the normal life and thus come to the conclusion of test of reasonableness, though there cannot be any straight jacket formula which can be mechanically applied in every case but from the facts given on record, I am of the view that the amount as allowed seems to be quite, reasonable and not high or abnormal. 9. In view of the above, the writ petition has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed.