AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The present petition challenges the order dated 17.2.2026, passed by the District Magistrate in Appeal No.26 of 2025 filed by the respondent No.3 thereby upholding the order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nagpur City under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Facts which are more or less undisputed are as under :
The respondent No.3, being a Mother, filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act against the present petitioners which came to be numbered as 58/MRC/81/2022. The present petitioners filed their reply along with several documents and the matter was proceeded.
On 26.02.2024 the respondent No.2 directed the petitioners to pay maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- per month each to the respondent No.3. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petitioners filed an appeal bearing No.10/2024 before the District Magistrate, Nagpur. The said appeal was rejected on 26.6.2025. Thereafter, on 25.7.2024 the respondent No.3 filed another appeal under Section 16 of the Act challenging the above mentioned order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the respondent No.2. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed by the respondent No.3 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. It is the contention that in the said appeal filed by the respondent No.3, notice of the said appeal was served upon the present petitioners, without memo of appeal and other documents.
In the backdrop of these facts on 11.11.2025 the present petitioners filed an application for supply of documents and for grant of time to file written submission. The said documents were received on 9.12.2025 as can be seen from the acknowledgment at Page 56 appended to the petition. However, by way of impugned order the respondent No.1 has passed an order on 17.2.2026 and upheld order passed by respondent No.2.
I have heard Mr. S.V. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. M.R. Kavimandan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. N.B. Bargat, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Learned counsel Mr. S.V. Deshmukh, for the petitioners points me out the various dates as mentioned in above para and states that no opportunity was granted to defend them. He further submits that the fact is clear enough from the various dates i.e. when the document was received. He also points me out the order-sheet of the said date i.e. 9.12.2025 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that both the parties are heard and the matter is closed for order. In nut shell it is the contention of Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel that no proper opportunity to present their case was ever accorded by the respondent No.1.
Per contra, Mr. Bargat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 opposed the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In his submission enough opportunity was granted by the respondent No.1 to put forth his case. He also submits that the allegations regarding the signing of the blank roznama etc. made by the petitioners cannot be looked into in writ jurisdiction.
I have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsels for the respective parties. Without opining on merits of the matter in my opinion it would be proper to relegate the matter to the respondent No.1 by quashing the order dated 17.2.2026.
In that view of the matter, following order is passed :
The order dated 17.2.2026, passed by the District Magistrate, Nagpur City, in Appeal No.26/2025 is quashed and set set aside.
The matter is relegated to the said Authority to decide it afresh in accordance with law.
In view of the fact that both the parties are before this Court. They are directed to appear before the said Authority on 25th August, 2026 without insisting of any formal notice.
The respondent No.1 is directed to give proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
It is made clear that the matter would be first decided on the delay application and thereafter only on merits.
Looking at the age of the parties and the matter pertains to the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 the respondent No.1 is directed to decide the application for condonation of delay within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
With this direction the petition is allowed and disposed of.