JUDGMENT Earlier petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.60413 of 2013 (Ram Sanehi Gupta vs. State of U.P. and others) before this Court and this Court on 6th November, 2013 has proceeded to pass following order: - "Ram Sanehi Gupta is complaining qua the conduct of his son Rajesh Kumar @ Baloo and qua the conduct of his daughter-in-law Seema Paswan and his grievance before this Court is that Rajesh Kumar @ Baloo as well as Seema Paswan are torturing him with impunity and on 05.07.2013 even an attempt has been made on his life and in the said direction he has proceeded to lodge an F.I.R. Petitioner submits that his life as well as property in question which belongs to him is not safe. Petitioner has stated that in order to protect the interest of senior citizens, an Act has been enforced knows as "The Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act, 2007". Petitioner submits that under the said provision in question, the District Magistrate has been authorized to exercise authority as may be necessary for proper carrying out the aims and objects of aforementioned Act in question. Petitioner submits that at this juncture of life, he needs protection of his life and liberty as well as property, and as such the concerned District Magistrate should be directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner. Consequently, in the facts of the case, District Magistrate of District Maharajganj is directed to look into the matter either himself or nomate any other official who can discharge the duty of District Magistrate to look into the grievance of the petitioner, preferably within next three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. In the said proceeding the veiw point of Rajesh Kumar @ Baloo and Seema Paswan shall also be heard. With these observations and directions, writ petition stands disposed of." 2. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the matter has been examined by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, District Maharajganjand the representation in question has been rejected after recording finding that the dispute inter-se parties is in between father and son and both the father and son have not been kind to each other and litigation are on-going inter-se in the shape of Suit No.730/2012 (Rajesh Kumar vs. Manoj Kumar and others). 3. 3. Once such is the factual situation that is so emerging that dispute is inter-se family members, then there is no infirmity in the order that has been so passed as rights of the parties are to be crystalised by Civil Court. 4. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly.