NEERAJ BAGHEL Vs. COLLECTOR RAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dtd. 6/2/2021 passed by the Collector, Raipur in Case No.2/21 (between Neeraj Baghel Vs Sevalal Baghel) whereby the petitioner has been directed to vacate the house within a week under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (henceforth 'the Act, 2007') and also the communication dtd. 29/1/2021 issued by the President, Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in the case filed by respondent No.4 under Ss. 5 and 32 of the Act, 2007 being Case No.03/B-121, year 2019-20, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.

(2.) Facts of the case are that respondent No.4 has filed an application under Ss. 5 & 32 of the Act, 2007, inter alia, claiming maintenance of Rs.10,000.00 from the petitioner/son and also eviction from the house No.39/74 situated at Kasaar Gali, Kamasipara, Sadar Bazar Ward, Raipur, ad measuring 603 square feet, alleging that the said house is proprietorship of respondent No.4. Since 2009 the petitioner and his wife are continuously harassing and abusing respondent No.4-father in the filthy language and threatened to oust from his own house and in the month of July, 2017, ousted him from the house. For the said reason, he is presently residing with his elder son. It has been further pleaded that the petitioner is neglecting and refusing to maintain his father in respect of food and treatment and also threatened to lodge an FIR if he enters in his own house. It has been further averred that the petitioner/son is working as In-charge Principal, Government School, Gohrapadar, District Gariyaband and is getting salary of Rs.50,000.00 per month and is capable to maintain his father. Hence the application was filed for grant of maintenance of Rs.10,000.00 per month and also to evict the petitioner from the house.

(3.) The petitioner/son has denied the allegations and stated that respondent No.4 is a retired Government servant, who is retired from Food Corporation of India (FCI) and is receiving pension. Therefore, he is capable to maintain himself. It has further been averred that the petitioner is residing with his mother, who is also a senior citizen in the subject premises. The application has been filed only to harass the petitioner and his mother, and civil suit is also pending adjudication before the 2nd Civil Judge, Class-1, Raipur pertaining to the subject property. It has also been averred that the respondent No.4 is having a separate house at Santoshi Nagar in his name, through which he is also getting rental income of Rs.10,000.00 and also having agricultural land at village Nakta, Mandir Hasaud, Raipur. In the year 2016, respondent No.4 had sold some agricultural land situated at village Sivni, Abhanpur, for a consideration of Rs.6,54,000.00 and the said money was kept in his bank account.