Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1127 (RAJ)

Shyam Lal v. Devendra @ Deva Nand

2015-05-25

ARUN BHANSALI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 31.03.2015 passed by Appellate Tribunal (District Magistrate), Jodhpur, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ('the Act') has been rejected. 2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 6 of the Act seeking possession and maintenance from the respondents son and daughter-in-law; the application was resisted by the respondents; a rejoinder was filed by the petitioner. 3. After hearing the parties, the Sub Divisional Officer, Jodhpur ('SDO') by order dated 19.05.2011 came to the conclusion that a suit filed by respondent Devendra was pending consideration before Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jodhpur Metro No.3, Jodhpur and in an application filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC, by order dated 02.04.2012 it was directed that defendants would not transfer the suit property and both the parties would maintain status quo regarding the disputed property, therefore as there was an interim order in force, no relief can be granted; regarding the maintenance, the SDO found that mother of the respondent and petitioner has filed proceedings before the Family Court, wherein, by order dated 23.03.2009, by way of interim maintenance, an order for payment of Rs. 1,000/- each has been made by the Family Court and, in view of the above, rejected the application filed by the petitioner. 4. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal. 5. The appellate authority concurred with the reasons indicated by the authority and dismissed the appeal. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders passed by both the authorities below are contrary to law and, therefore, the same deserve to be set aside. 7. It is further submitted that under Section 27 of the Act jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred and on that count the orders passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Family Court are of no consequence and irrespective of the orders passed by the said Court, the authorities below should have granted the relief sought by the petitioner and, therefore, the orders impugned deserve interference by this Court. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material placed no record. 9. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be fundamentally baseless. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material placed no record. 9. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be fundamentally baseless. The provisions of Section 27 of the Act read as under:- "27. Jurisdiction of civil courts barred. - No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter to which any provision of this Act applies and no injunction shall be granted by any Civil Court in respect of anything which is done or intended to be done by or under this Act." 10. A bare look at the provisions reveals that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of any matter, to which, any provision of the Act applies is barred and further no injunction can be granted by any Civil Court in respect of anything which is done or intended to be done by or under the Act. 11. Admittedly, the suit before the Civil Court and the proceedings before the Family Court were instituted prior to filing of the application before the SDO under Section 6 of the Act; the Civil Court and the Family Court in exercise of their jurisdiction, passed orders of injunction and maintenance and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the proceedings before the Civil Court or the Family Court were barred under Section 27. 12. So far as merits of the orders passed by both the authorities below is concerned, once an injunction has been granted by the Civil Court for maintenance of status quo, the authority under the Act cannot pass any order contrary to the said injunction and further once based on the material available, the Family Court has granted maintenance, the authority under the Act cannot grant maintenance all over again. In case the petitioner wants variation in the maintenance granted by the Family Court, it is always open for the petitioner to approach the said Court.In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******