Rajasthan), Police Station Muhana, Jaipur v. Shakila Khan W/o Late

Shakila Khan W/o Late Shri Nijam Khan, R/o 28, Shiv Colony, Ratan Sagar, Iscon Road, Muhana Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan), Police Station Muhana, Jaipur. ----Respondent/Applicant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Kumar Khichar, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN 15/07/2025 Order

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the Court of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Jaipur (for short ‘the District Magistrate’) in appeal No.21/2025 (senior citizen appeal), the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

2. By passing the impugned order dated 06.05.2025, the District Magistrate has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short ‘the Act of 2007’) on the ground of maintainability. While rejecting the aforesaid appeal filed by the petitioner, the learned District Magistrate was of the view that under section 16 of the Act of 2007, it is only the senior citizens or the parents who can file an appeal and appeal filed by children is not maintainable. [2025:RJ-JP:26302] (2 of 5) [CW-9459/2025]

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in this writ petition has already been set at rest by this Court in the case of Maya Devi and Ors. Vs. Vishweshwar Dayal and Ors (S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.11941/2021) reported in MANU/RH/0565/2023. Counsel submits that in the case of Maya Devi (supra), this Court held that the appeal under Section 16(1) of the Act of 2007 is maintainable if the same is filed by the children or relatives. Counsel submits that the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court in the case of Maya Devi (supra) was assailed by the effected parties before the Division Bench of this Court by way of filing D.B. Sppeal Appeal (Writ) No. 471/2023. Counsel submits that the aforesaid judgment dated 01.05.2023 passed in the case of Maya Devi (supra) has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court while deciding D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.471/2023 titled as Kamaljeet Singh Vs. Ummed Singh Poonia and Anr. on 26.05.2023. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate is not sustainable in the eye of law and the matter is required to be remitted to the District Magistrate to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner on the merits.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record.

5. The controversy involved in this writ petition is no more res integra as the same has been decided by this Court in the batch of writ petitions with the lead case of Maya Devi (supra) wherein it has already been held that the appeal filed under Section 16(1) of [2025:RJ-JP:26302] (3 of 5) [CW-9459/2025] the Act of 2007 by the children and relatives is maintainable. It has been held in para 21 to 24, which reads thus:- “21. In the writ petitions challenging the orders of the Appellate Tribunal whereby the appeals either filed by the children or the relatives have been dismissed as being not maintainable, the orders of dismissal of appeals (in SB CWP No. 17596/2018, Nemi Chand Vs. Hukum Kaur & Anr.- the order dated 19.06.2018 passed in Appeal No.12/57/2017 and in SB CWP No. 14495/2020, Smt. Minali Sharma Vs. Shyam Narayan Sharma- the order dated 12.11.2020 passed by the Court of the District Collector, Tonk, in Appeal No.39/2020) are set aside with the direction to the Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeals afresh on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/appellants. 22. Since the writ petitions have been disposed of, the stay applications and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. 23. Before parting this order, this Court would like to add that since by various pronouncements by various Hon’ble Courts it has been held that the remedy of an appeal under section 16(1) of the Act of 2007 is available to all the aggrieved persons including the children and relatives. The Addl. Solicitor General of India Mr. R.D. Rastogi, Senior Advocate also stated before the Court that the remedy of an appeal under section 16(1) of the Act of 2007 is available to all the aggrieved persons including the children and relatives but because of non-mentioning in Section 16 of the Act of 2007 that the children and the relatives could also file an appeal, the confusion remains in legal fraternity and the general public which leads them to invoke the writ jurisdiction against the orders of the Maintenance Tribunal. 24. In view of the observations of the Hon’ble Courts and the statement made by learned Addl. Solicitor General of India, this Court expects from the Union of India to take necessary steps for issuing orders, circulars or amendments in consonance with the observations, findings of the Hon’ble Courts and the statement of Addl. Solicitor General of India in regard to the remedy of filing of an appeal to the children and relatives under the provision of Section 16(1) of the Act of 2007.” [2025:RJ-JP:26302] (4 of 5) [CW-9459/2025]

6. The judgment passed in the case of Maya Devi (supra) has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court while deciding the Special Appeal (Writ) in the case of Kamaljeet Singh (supra) and the Division Bench of this Court has held as under:- “This appeal is directed against order dated 01.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, the learned Single Judge has disposed off the writ petitions holding that the appellant/writ petitioner has the remedy of appeal as provided under Section 16(1) of The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2007’). Though, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the provisions contained in the Act of 2007 do not expressly provide for an appeal by the children, we find that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Rekha Agarwal Versus Union of India & Others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16743/2018, decided on 03.08.2021) has held that such a right is available, relying upon Division Bench Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Paramjit Kumar Saroya Versus Union of India and Another, AIR 2014 P & H 121. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.”

7. Since the controversy involved in this writ petition has already been set at rest by the Single Bench and the Division Bench of this Court in the above noted matters, this Court finds no valid reason to take a different view.

8. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the Court of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Jaipur in appeal No.21/2025 (senior citizen appeal) stands quashed and set aside. The instant writ petition stands allowed and the matter is remitted to the District Magistrate, Jaipur to re-register the appeal No.21/2025 to its original number [2025:RJ-JP:26302] (5 of 5) [CW-9459/2025] and decide the same on the merits after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the respective parties expeditiously as early as possible strictly in accordance with law.

9. Stay application and all application(s) (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. MADAN/57 (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J