ORDER : 1. This appeal is filed by the original petitioner no. 1 whose petition filed alongwith petitioner no. 2 and 3 - respondent no. 2 and 3 herein came to be dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under : Original respondent of the writ petition, i.e. respondent no. 1 herein is the mother of the appellant, who is aged about 70 years. She had approached the SDM under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ('the Act', for short) seeking maintenance from her son and two grandsons of predeceased son on the ground that she is unable to maintain herself. The present appellant filed a reply to such application and mainly contended that his other siblings are equally responsible to maintain the mother and have not been joined. The authority passed an order on 22.03.2017 directing the appellant i.e. son to pay Rs.5000/- to the mother and the grandsons to pay Rs.5000/- every month. The order of the SDM was challenged before the Collector who dismissed the appeal by order dated 05.08.2020. The appellant and the grandsons had challenged the said order before the learned Single Judge in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 3. We note that though the grandsons were also petitioners in the writ petition alongwith the present appellant, this appeal which is being decided, has been filed by the present appellant only. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant raised two contentions. Firstly, that the SDM should have joined other siblings who were equally responsible to maintain the mother as parties in the said proceedings. The second contention is that no proper enquiry was conducted before awarding the maintenance. 5. In the reply filed before the SDM, the appellant had specifically raised the issue of non-joining other brothers and sisters as respondents. Under Section 4 of the Act, senior citizens can make an application for maintenance. Section 5 lays down the procedure for dealing with such application. Sub-section (5) of Section 5 provides that the application for maintenance may be filed against one or more persons. However, the proviso provides that such children or relative may implead other persons liable to maintain parents in the application for maintenance. Thus, it was open for the appellant to urge the SDM to join other persons responsible for maintenance of the mother. However, the proviso provides that such children or relative may implead other persons liable to maintain parents in the application for maintenance. Thus, it was open for the appellant to urge the SDM to join other persons responsible for maintenance of the mother. It is true that he did not file specific application for such purpose. However, he did raise objection in the reply. In that view of the matter, the SDM ought to have joined the other siblings of the appellant in the proceedings instituted by the mother for maintenance. 6. However, with respect to the main direction for consolidated payment of maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the mother, we are not inclined to interfere. Firstly, the present appellant is required to pay Rs.5000/-. Secondly, he admits that he has some agricultural land and property which he inherited upon death of his father and lastly, while placing the matter before SDM for deciding which of the siblings should share this burden, the mother cannot be left without maintenance. 7. Under the circumstances, the proceedings are placed back to the SDM for proceeding further after joining the other brothers and sisters of the appellant as parties. It is clarified that this order shall have no effect on the maintenance amount to be received by the mother. The SDM will only decide if anyone else, besides the appellant, has to share this burden. Till a fresh order is passed, the appellant shall continue to be liable to pay Rs. 5000/- per month from beginning. So far as the grandsons are concerned, this order would have no effect at all. Under the circumstances, it would not be necessary for the mother to respond to the proceedings before the SDM. Such proceedings will be limited to deciding the liability of maintenance of the mother inter-party. 8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.