JADAB CHANDRA HALDAR Vs. INDRANIL HALDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of Order No.05 dtd. 25/8/2021 as passed by the Learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Domkal, Murshidabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'SDO') in L.A Case no.1 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the said SDO in a proceeding under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the said 'Act') dismissed the petition of the petitioner as filed under Sec. 23 of the said Act.

(2.) The petitioner felt aggrieved and thus preferred the instant revisional application.

(3.) In support of the instant revisional application learned advocate for the revisionist/father at the outset draws attention of this Court to the copy of the petition as filed under Sec. 23 of the said Act before the learned SDO. Attention of this Court is also drawn to the impugned order. It is contended that while passing the impugned order, learned SDO has failed to visualize the true spirit of the said Act which is practically a beneficial legislation for the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens guaranteed and recognized under the Constitution of India. Drawing attention to the provision of Sec. 8 vis-a-vis Sec. 23 of the said Act it is argued that while disposing the said petition under Sec. 23 of the said Act, the SDO has failed to appreciate the true spirit of the said application as well as the said Act and therefore the said SDO is not justified in passing the impugned order. It is argued that since in the deed of transfer as executed by the present revisionist/father in favour of the present opposite party/son, there exists a clause that after execution of the said deed of transfer the present opposite party/son shall have to maintain his parents and shall have to take the responsibility of their treatment and since the present opposite party/son has failed and neglected to comply with such stipulation of the deed of transfer, the SDO ought to have allowed the application as filed under Sec. 23 of the said Act instead of dismissing it. It is thus submitted that it is a fit case where interference is required by this Court in exercise of its superintendent jurisdiction as envisaged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.