SHANKAR LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner Shankar Lal assailing the order dated '28.06.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer-Cum-Maintenance Tribunal, Gogunda and the order dated 15.01.2013 passed by the District Collector, Udaipur whereby the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,500.00per month to his father namely, Rodi Lal who had filed an application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with the plea that he is an aged person and is not in a position to sustain himself in view of the abnormal costs of each and every item. A claim of Rs.5,000.00 per month was made, however, the Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the claim of Rs.2,500.00 per month as well as the payment of arrears of amount from the date of filing of the application. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, an appeal was preferred before the District Collector, Udaipur, who is the appellate authority. The District Collector, Udaipur has upheld the maintenance amount of Rs.2,500.00, however, directed that both the brothers namely Shanker Lal and Devi Lal to provide one room house as also the aforesaid amount including the demand of arrears. With the aforesaid direction, the appeal was disposed of. Aggrieved thereby, the instant writ petition has been filed assailing the aforesaid orders.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not in a position to maintain even himself and his family members, therefore, he is unable to contribute amount to his father as directed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer and District Collector. He has submitted that even the petitioner has no arrangement for his residential house and therefore, when it is not possible for himself to maintain then there is no justification for directing the petitioner to pay an amount which is beyond his means. He has further submitted that there is no justification for coming to the conclusion of Rs.2,500.00 per month which is even otherwise abnormal and unjustified. It has further been submitted that the father of petitioner was having substantial agricultural land and after death of his grand father, substantial land came to the share of the respondent (father) and therefore, he has proper means to maintain himself. Accordingly, he has pleaded for reversal of the aforesaid orders.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have perused the impugned order and other material available on record and at the outset, it would be appropriate to refer to the statement of objects and reasons by which the aforesaid Act came Into force on 29.12.2007 and the same was published in the official gazette on 31.12.2007. The objects and reasons are as under: