JUDGMENT : 1. The lawyers are abstaining from the work due to strike. 2. Though the matter came up for consideration on the Civil Misc. IV Stay Application (No.3772/2023), however, with the consent of the parties present in person before this Court, the writ petition itself was heard and the same is being decided finally. 3. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “Therefore; in light of facts stated, issues raised and arguments advanced; it is most humbly prayed that a) This writ petition may be accepted. b) The order dated 17.02.2021 (Annex.1) passed by the court of Maintenance Tribunal and Sub-divisional officer Jodhpur with maintenance case no.94/2018 titled as ‘Achlaram Bhargava Joshi Vs. Ashok Kumar Joshi & Anr.” may be quashed and set aside. c) The order dated 17.03.2021 (Annex.2) passed in the matter of Recalling Application no.22/2021 titled as ‘Achlaram Bhargava Joshi Vs. Ashok Kumar Joshi & Anr.’, may be quashed and set aside. d) Order as to cost may be passed in favor of the present petitioner. Any other order which this court deems fit in the ends of justice may be passed in favor of present petitioner.” 4. As the pleaded facts would reveal, the present petitioner is the eldest son of the respondent no.1; who has two more sons, Mr. Rajendra Kumar Bhargava and Suresh Kumar Bhargava. The respondent no. 1 retired from the post of J.T.O. from the department of B.S.N.L. in the year 2008 and since then he is receiving regular pension. 4.1 Until the year 2013, the petitioner and his family were residing together with the respondent no. 1, in the house bearing Plot No. 153, Masooriya, Balaji Road, Jodhpur and that on account of some dispute with respondent no. 1, the petitioner along with his family started living in a different portion of the said house, which is the ancestral property of the family. 4.2 A suit was filed by the petitioner for partition and permanent injunction before the learned District Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan, and an interim order (at Annex.-3), dated 30.07.2018, directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the property in question, was passed. 4.3 Subsequently, the respondent no. 4.2 A suit was filed by the petitioner for partition and permanent injunction before the learned District Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan, and an interim order (at Annex.-3), dated 30.07.2018, directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding the property in question, was passed. 4.3 Subsequently, the respondent no. 1 filed an application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short “Act of 2007”), before the learned Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Divisional Officer, Jodhpur, principally averring therein, that the petitioner is having illegal possession over the property in question and that the petitioner is neglecting to maintain the father (respondent no.1). 4.4 The learned Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 17.02.2021, allowed the aforementioned application while directing the present petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/-per month towards maintenance to the respondent no.1. 4.5 Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an application for recalling the said order before the learned Tribunal, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 17.03.2021. 4.6 The present petition has been preferred against the aforementioned two impugned orders dated 17.02.2021 and 17.03.2021. 5. The petitioner (present in person) submitted that the respondent no.1 is getting a pension of approximately Rs. 33,000/-per month and in addition to that, he is getting an income of approximately Rs. 25000/-per month from his two rental properties, located in Jodhpur. 5.1 He further submitted that the other two sons (brothers of the petitioner) are equally liable to maintain the respondent no. 1, and that the petitioner’s brother, namely Rajendra Kumar Bhargava, is conducting a successful transport business under the name of ‘Charu Packers and Movers’, while the petitioner is a heart patient, who has undergone heart surgery in the year 2016, and owing to his ill health is unable to conduct his business or undertake any other work. And that, at present the business of the petitioner is being taken care of by his son, Lokendra Kumar Bhargava Joshi (proforma respondent) who is the sole earning member of the family. Therefore, the impugned orders are perverse and ought to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the respondent no. 1 (present in person) opposed the submissions by the petitioner present in person and submitted that the present petitioner is his eldest son and is the only one capable of maintaining him out of his three sons. 6.1. Therefore, the impugned orders are perverse and ought to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the respondent no. 1 (present in person) opposed the submissions by the petitioner present in person and submitted that the present petitioner is his eldest son and is the only one capable of maintaining him out of his three sons. 6.1. He further submitted that the petitioner is running a successful transport business, and that his other son, Rajendra Kumar Bhargava, suffers from paralysis, and is not in a condition to maintain him. And that, though he is a pension holder, the same is not adequate to sustain himself, and that the petitioner is in illegal possession of the property in question. 7. Heard both the parties, present in person, as well as perused the record of the case. 8. This Court observes that the petitioner is the eldest son of the respondent no.1, who is retired septuagenarian, who held the post of JTO at B.S.N.L. and has receiving pension from the year 2008. And that, in 2018 he filed an application for maintenance under the Act of 2007 before the learned Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Divisional Officer, Jodhpur. 8.1 The learned Tribunal vide impugned order, dated 17.02.2021, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-per month towards maintenance to the respondent no. 1. And that application filed by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal for recall of the said order was dismissed vide impugned order dated 17.03.2021. 9. This Court further observes that the Act of 2007 is a special legislation enacted to safeguard the rights and interests of a vulnerable section of society viz. senior citizens, and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. S. Vanitha v. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3822/2020 decided on 15.12.2020, has succinctly encapsulated the legislative intent purpose behind the enactment of the Act of 2007 while laying out the procedure to be followed by a Maintenance Tribunal under the Act of 2007. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “14. A senior citizen, including a parent, who is unable to maintain themselves from their own earning or out of property owned by them, is entitled to make an application under Section 4(i). A parent or grand-parent may make an application against one or more of their children. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “14. A senior citizen, including a parent, who is unable to maintain themselves from their own earning or out of property owned by them, is entitled to make an application under Section 4(i). A parent or grand-parent may make an application against one or more of their children. A childless senior citizen can make an application against a relative specified in Section 2(g). Section 4 recognises a corresponding obligation on the part of the children or relative to maintain a senior citizen, extending to such needs as would enable them to lead a normal life. In the case of a relative, the obligation is if they are in possession of the property of the senior citizen or would inherit property from them. Hence, in the case of the children of a senior citizen, the obligation to maintain a parent is not conditional on being in possession of property of the senior citizen or upon a right of future inheritance. 15. The procedure to be followed by a Maintenance Tribunal (constituted under Section 7) is of a summary nature as provided in Section 8(1) and with all the powers of a Civil Court, as provided in Section 8(2). Under Sub-section (1) of Section 9, where a senior citizen is not able to maintain himself or herself and the children or relatives, as the case may be, neglect or refuse to maintain them, the Tribunal is empowered to order them to make a monthly allowance at such monthly rate for the maintenance of the senior citizen, as the Tribunal may deem fit. The amount of the monthly allowance can be altered inter alia upon a change in circumstances, under Section 10.” 10. This Court further observes that the learned Maintenance Tribunal vide the impugned order held that the petitioner is bound to pay monthly maintenance to his aged father (respondent no.1) for expenses towards his food, medical and other requirements. 11. This Court, in light of the above made observations and the aforementioned precedent law, finds that the impugned orders have been passed in due accordance with law, and do not suffer from any legal infirmity, warranting the interference of this Court. 12. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. Accordingly, the stay applications also stand dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 13. No order as to costs.