GOPALKRISHNA Vs. BABULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this court is son of an unfortunate father who is the respondent and has filed a writ petition being aggrieved by an order passed under the provision of Madhya Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules, 2009.

(2.) The facts of the case reveal that the respondents No.1 and 2 are the parents of the petitioner and as they were hand to mouth and were not having any source of livelihood, who were not been looked after by their children, took shelter of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules, 2009 framed under the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Sr. Citizens Act, 2007. An order was passed on 25-05-2016 granting Rs. 3000/- per month to both old parents by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Susner, District Agar, Malwa, who is the competent authority to grant maintenance. The present petitioner who is the son being aggrieved by the order dated 25-05-2016 preferred an appeal before the Collector District Agar, Malwa and by order dated 22-03-2017 the appeal preferred by the son who is the present petitioner was allowed by the learned Collector. The old Parents as the order granting the maintenance was set aside rushed to this court by filing a writ petition and the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2471/2017 (Babulal v. Gopal Krishna and three others) vide order dated 22-11-2017 has set aside the order passed by the learned Collector as there was no right of appeal available to the present petitioner, who is son of old parents and it was also observed that the appellate tribunal can hear the appeal if it is filed by the parents. Now the petitioner after the order passed by the Collector depriving the parents from maintenance, which has been set aside by this court, has filed this present petition stating that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer is bad in law. The ground raised by the petitioner is that earlier the old parents have preferred an application under section 125 of CrPC, 1973 and by an order dated 31-01-2013 the application was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate Class-I, District Shajapur and, therefore, once the claim of maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure has been denied, the Sub Divisional Officer under the Act of 2007 could not have granted maintenance to the old parent.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, this court is of the considered opinion that the two provisions for granting maintenance are having different situations merely because some application in the year 2013 preferred under the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected against the parents it will not come in way of the parents for filing an application under the Madhya Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Rules, 2009.