Palak Maharshi Patel vs Collector

Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J

Heard Mr. Gaurang K. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Rohan Shah, learned AGP for the respondent nos.1 and 2.

It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.3 original applicant being motherÂin law of the present petitioner had instituted the

application being Maintenance Application no.15 of 2019 before the City Deputy Collector under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior

Citizens Act, 2007 on 24.05.2019 for the following reliefs:

“(a) Be pleased to pass the order directing the opponent no.2 and her son to make their arrangement to live with her husband or as per her wish

and that let me live peacefully in my property;

(b) Since I am living my retirement life and I can’t maintain myself from the pension received by me, and since the opponents are earning a lot by

doing private service, be pleased to pass the order directing them to pay me Rs.7500/Â​ per month to maintain myself in the interest of justice;

(c) Be pleased to award the cost of this application;

(d) Hon’ble Sir may pass any other order as may deem fit and proper.â€​

The Maintenance Application preferred by the respondent no.3 was allowed by order dated 27.12.2019 granting the following reliefs:

“The application of the applicant is allowed.

(a) The applicant is entitled to live peaceful in her ownership suit property/house.

(b) The opponent Nos.1 and 2 can’t use and enjoy the house of the applicant without the wish and will of the applicant.

If any party has objection against the order than he/she can prefer appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and District Collector, Ahmedabad within 60

days from the date of receipt of this order.â€​

The petitioner instituted an appeal before the District Collector being Appeal No. ECB/MPA/APPEAL/11/2020. The said appeal came to be

rejected by order dated 07.04.2021.

Mr. Gaurang K. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that respondent no.4Â husband of the petitioner is residing in separate premise

on rental basis before filing of the application by the respondent no.3 before the competent authority. It is further stated that the respondent no.3 i.e.

mother inÂlaw and the petitioner are residing together in the same premises. It is further alleged that the application is collusively instituted by the

mother inÂlaw duly colluding with respondent no.4 her son. It is further submitted that the summons was deliberately served/sent on different

place i.e. F/203 instead of F/201 where the present petitioner is residing and in the application also F/201, Vaikunth Appartment is mentioned. He also

submitted that the summons was deliberately served to the different address than the address mentioned in the application. It is also stated that the

petitioner is residing with her Son in the present premises.

Issue Notice returnable on 16.06.2021. Mr. Rohan Shah, learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2.

Direct service is permitted qua rest of the respondents.

Parties are directed to maintain the statusÂ​quo as on today till then.