GOPAL Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners being the sons of 3rd Respondent - mother aged and ailing lady are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dtd. 25/5/2022 passed by the 1st Respondent-Deputy Commissioner and the order dtd. 22/5/2019 passed by the 2nd Respondent -Assistant Commissioner respectively at Annexures-A and B. The Assistant Commissioner has directed the Petitioners to pay to their mother a monthly sum of Rs.5,000.00 each. However, the Deputy Commissioner has enhanced it to Rs.10,000.00.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioners vehemently argues that: Petitioners being the appellants could not have been made worse off in their own appeal; they do not have sufficient means to pay the amount and they are ready and willing to look after their mother and therefore, she should be asked to join their home, leaving the place of her daughters; the mother has claimed maintenance only at the instigation of her daughters and thus the claim lacks bona fide. Learned counsel hastily adds that, all these aspects despite urgement having not been adverted to, the impugned orders suffer from legal infirmities and therefore, are liable to be voided.

(3.) Learned HCGP appearing for the official Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned advocate appearing for the mother of Petitioners vehemently oppose the Petition making submission in justification of the impugned orders and the reasons on which they have been structured. Learned HCGP contends that the impugned orders are the products of exercise of discretion by the officials under a socio-welfare legislation namely Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and therefore the Writ Court exercising a limited supervisory jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227 should abhor to undertake a deeper examination in matters like this vide SADHANA LODH vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., (2003) 3 SCC 524.