SURESH SHARMA Vs. DHANWANTI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing this appeal, the appellants have challenged the order dtd. 7/4/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition filed by the appellants against the impugned order dtd. 8/3/2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaipur has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent submitted an application under Sec. 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short 'the Act of 2007') with the prayers to direct the appellants not to abuse her and not to alienate the property in dispute and the possession of the property in dispute be handed over to her. Counsel for the appellants further submitted that the aforesaid application was submitted on 6/3/2019 and on that day notices were issued to the appellants for their appearance on 8/3/2019. On 8/3/2019 when the appellants appeared before the competent authority, the competent authority passed an interim order by granting final relief to the respondent directing the appellants to vacate the property in question within a period of one month. At the same time Site Inspection Commissioner was also appointed to visit the house in question and prepare a list of articles lying there with regard to ownership. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dtd. 8/3/2019, the appellants knocked the doors of this Court by way of filing a writ petition before the learned Single Judge which was dismissed vide order dtd. 7/4/2022. Lastly, counsel for the appellants submitted that it is the settled principle of law that no final relief can be granted by passing an interim order.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellants and submitted that the respondent is an old infirm lady. After death of her husband, the property in question was purchased by her and she has not been allowed to reside in this property. Since she was not having any accommodation to reside, hence, she has to reside with her daughter at Ahmedabad. Counsel further submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the learned Single Judge has rightly upheld the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer.