HARISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 15.11.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by Deputy Commissioner, Ambala, whereby the appeal of the applicant had been dismissed. Resultantly, the directions that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent No.3 Narinder Nath son of Jai Ram from the date of the application as per the order dated 07.12.2018 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambala, the prescribed authority under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short '2007 Act'), has been upheld which was ex parte.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the matter was liable to be remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh decision after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to contest. Reliance was placed upon Section 2 (g) of the 2007 Act to submit that the petitioner was not a relative being a nephew and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was barred to award the maintenance. It was further submitted that there are other relatives who are earning handsome income and the liability has only been fixed upon the petitioner.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent No.3 has vehemently submitted that the petitioner was well aware of the proceedings as he had put in appearance before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambala Cantt. and, thereafter chosen absent to himself, while referring to the order dated 12.10.2018 (Annexure P-3), whereby it was noticed that repeated notices have been issued to the petitioner, but he was not coming forth and trying to delay the case.