Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 734 (MP)

Nilofar Khan v. Savra Bee

2020-07-24

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Heard through Video Conferencing. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 21.01.2020 passed by the Collector, Vidisha in Appeal No.0004/Appeal/19-20 and order dated 22.03.2019 passed by Sub Divisional Officer in Kurwai, District Vidisha in case no 22/B-121/2018-19, by which the petitioner has been directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.7000/- to respondent No.1 under Section 7 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (In short Act 2007). 2. The respondent No.1 had filed an application under Section 7 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 on the allegation that the petitioner and her husband have fraudulently grabbed their house and the land, and now they have turned them out of their house. They are not looking after the respondent no.1 and her husband. 3. The SDO by order dated 22.03.2019 came to a conclusion that there is an allegation that the petitioner has fraudulently got 7 bigha of land belonging to respondent No.1, transferred in her name and the husband of the petitioner has suffered a fracture of his right leg and they don't have any money for treatment. It was also held by the SDO that the husband of the petitioner is working in BSNL and petitioner is also working on the post of teacher in Primary School in village Baretha. Thus, it was held that the petitioner is liable to maintain respondent No.1. Accordingly, it was directed that the petitioner shall pay Rs.7000/- per month to respondent No.1 for maintenance. 4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by SDO, the petitioner filed an appeal which has been dismissed by Collector, District Vidisha by order dated 21.01.2020. 5. Challenging the orders passed by the Tribunals below, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.1 has suppressed the fact that she has two more daughters and a son. So far as the dispute with regard to the property is concerned, a civil suit is already pending between the parties. The petitioner has a liability of looking after her three children and the husband of the petitioner has already retired and an amount of Rs. 7000 per month is on a higher side. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. 6. The petitioner has a liability of looking after her three children and the husband of the petitioner has already retired and an amount of Rs. 7000 per month is on a higher side. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. 6. The undisputed fact is that the petitioner is the daughter of the respondent no. 1. Both the Tribunals have come to a conclusion that the petitioner is liable to maintain respondent No.1 and her husband. The petitioner and her husband are in job. The petitioner is a whereas husband of the petitioner is working in BSNL. During the course of the arguments, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in fact husband of the petitioner has retired but no document has been filed in support of said contention. Further the petitioner has disclosed her age as 40 years, therefore, it is clear that contention of the petitioner that husband of the petitioner has retired does not appear to be correct because he must not have crossed the age of more than 50 years by now. Be that as it may. 7. The petitioner is the daughter of respondent No.1. The allegations are that she has grabbed the property of respondent No.1 by playing fraud and in respect of that a civil suit is also pending between the parties. 8. The concurrent findings of facts have been recorded by the Tribunals below and the counsel for the petitioner could not point out any jurisdictional error or perversity in the orders passed by the Tribunals below, coupled with the fact that only an amount of Rs.7000/- has been awarded for the maintenance of respondent No.1 as well as for her husband, who is about 70 years. Accordingly, this court is of the considered opinion that this case does not require any interference. Accordingly this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.