SMT. LEELA NAMDEV vs SHRI AMIT NAMDEV

1

CGHC010448822025 2026:CGHC:38665
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
RAGHVENDRA
JAT
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 5500 of 2025
1 - Smt. Leela Namdev W/o Late Shri Devi Prasad Namdev Aged About
72 Years R/o Yc-9,yash Vihar, Moti Nagar, Boriyakhurd Road, Old
Dhamtari Road, District- Raipur C.G.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Shri Amit Namdev S/o Late Shri Devi Prasad Namdev Aged About
44 Years R/o House No. 22 And 23, Moti Nagar, Boriyakhurd Road, Old
Dhamtari Road, District- Raipur C.G.
2 - Appellate Tribunal Under The Provisions Of Maintenance And
Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act, 2007 Through The
Collector, Raipur C.G.
3 - Competent Authority And Sub Divisional Officer (Revene), Under
The Provisions Of Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 Through The Collector, Raipur C.G.
4 - Smt. Archana Jaiswal D/o Late Devi Prasad Namdeo, W/o Shri
Ashok Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 48 Years Resident - House No. Y C -
9, Yash Vihar Moti Nagar Boriyakhurd Road Old Dhamtari Road Raipur
Tehesil And District Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Juhi Anguriya, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)/State : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondent No. 4 : Ms. Shivali Dubey, Advocate.

2
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
01/09/2026
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following
reliefs:-
“i. To kindly set aside the impugned order dated
18.09.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority, Raipur
(ANNEXURE P/1).
ii. To kindly restore and uphold the order dated 10.01.2025
passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, Raipur, granting
maintenance to the Petitioner and protecting her lawful
share in deposits and direction may kindly be issued to
immediately implement the order dated 10.01.2025.
iii. To grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and
equity.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority, Raipur,
whereby the well-reasoned order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the
Maintenance Tribunal has been set aside, is illegal and
unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the petitioner is a 72-
year-old widow and a senior citizen having a limited family
pension of approximately Rs.2,200/- per month and is dependent

3
upon her children for her day-to-day maintenance and medical
expenses. The petitioner has been residing with her married
daughter after being compelled to leave the residence of
respondent No.1, her son, and the daughter is already providing
her accommodation, daily necessities, physical care and medical
assistance, despite having her own family responsibilities and
financial liabilities. Learned counsel further submits that
respondent No.1 is financially well-settled and is earning
approximately Rs.55,000/- per month as a Branch Manager with
GRUH Finance Ltd., Raipur, and despite having sufficient means,
failed to adequately maintain and care for his aged mother. The
Maintenance Tribunal, after considering the circumstances of the
parties, had rightly directed respondent No.1 to pay Rs.15,000/-
per month towards the petitioner’s maintenance, while taking into
consideration that the daughter was already providing residence
and care to the petitioner. It is further submitted that although the
daughter was impleaded before the Maintenance Tribunal at the
instance of respondent No.1 himself, she was not impleaded in
the appeal, yet the Appellate Authority has imposed liability upon
her towards the maintenance and medical expenses of the
petitioner, which is in clear violation of the principles of natural
justice. Learned counsel submits that the Appellate Authority has
also failed to appreciate that the petitioner’s residence with her
daughter is not voluntary, as she was compelled to leave the
house of respondent No.1 and thereafter took shelter with her

4
married daughter. It is further contended that the four-member
committee constituted by the Appellate Authority to submit a report
regarding the petitioner’s maintenance claim failed to properly
consider the factual circumstances and merely recorded that the
petitioner was willingly residing with her daughter, without
considering the fact that she had been removed from the
residence of respondent No.1. Such a report demonstrates non-
application of mind and has materially influenced the impugned
order. Learned counsel further submits that the Appellate Authority
failed to consider that the married daughter is already bearing the
responsibility of maintaining the petitioner in addition to her own
family obligations, and shifting further financial liability upon her
would cause undue hardship. It is, therefore, submitted that the
order dated 18.09.2025 deserves to be set aside and the well-
considered order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Maintenance
Tribunal, Raipur, directing respondent No.1 to pay maintenance of
Rs.15,000/- per month, deserves to be restored in the interest of
justice and to secure a dignified life for the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 opposes the writ
petition and submits that the same is misconceived and not
maintainable, as the petitioner seeks re-appreciation of disputed
questions of fact which have already been considered by the
competent authority while passing the reasoned order dated
18.09.2025 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It is submitted that respondent No.1,

5
being the son of the petitioner, has always remained concerned
about her welfare and, despite having limited and fluctuating
income and his own family responsibilities, has been willing to
provide reasonable support to the petitioner. Learned counsel
submits that the petitioner voluntarily chose to reside with her
daughter after an unfortunate family incident and was never
forcibly ousted or abandoned by respondent No.1. It is further
submitted that the petitioner is not without means and has
independent sources of income by way of pension, LIC interest
and rental income, apart from substantial amounts received
towards LIC proceeds, fixed deposits, postal savings, mutual
funds and bank deposits after the demise of her husband. The
petitioner is also stated to be holding substantial fixed deposits
and other financial resources, which were duly disclosed before
and considered by the competent authority. Learned counsel
further submits that several properties were voluntarily transferred
by the petitioner in favour of her daughter and respondent No.1
never objected to the same. It is contended that the allegations of
wilful neglect, abuse, abandonment and exclusive financial
dependency upon respondent No.1 are incorrect and contrary to
the material available on record. The impugned order dated
18.09.2025 has been passed after affording adequate opportunity
of hearing to the concerned parties and after considering the
pleadings and documents on record, and does not suffer from any
jurisdictional error, perversity or arbitrariness warranting

6
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the writ
petition as well as the prayer for interim relief and for upholding
the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused
the material available on record.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. Vanitha vs.
Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and others,
2021 15 SCC 730, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as
under:-
“ 19. A senior citizen, including a parent, who is unable to
maintain themselves from their own earning or out of
property owned by them, is entitled to make an
application under Section 4(i). A parent or grandparent
may make an application against one or more of their
children. A childless senior citizen can make an
application against a relative specified in Section 2(g).
Section 4 recognises a corresponding obligation on the
part of the children or relative to maintain a senior
citizen, extending to such needs as would enable them
to lead a normal life. In the case of a relative, the
obligation is if they are in possession of the property of
the senior citizen or would inherit property from them.
Hence, in the case of the children of a senior citizen, the
obligation to maintain a parent is not conditional on

7
being in possession of property of the senior citizen or
upon a right of future inheritance [ “ 4. Maintenance of
parents and senior citizens .—(1) A senior citizen
including parent who is unable to maintain himself from
his own earning or out of the property owned by him,
shall be entitled to make an application under Section 5
in case of—(i) parent or grandparent, against one or
more of his children not being a minor;(ii) a childless
senior citizen, against such of his relative referred to in
clause (g) of Section 2.(2) The obligation of the children
or relative, as the case may be, to maintain a senior
citizen extends to the needs of such citizen so that
senior citizen may lead a normal life.(3) The obligation of
the children to maintain his or her parent extends to the
needs of such parent either father or mother or both, as
the case may be, so that such parent may lead a normal
life.(4) Any person being a relative of a senior citizen
and having sufficient means shall maintain such senior
citizen provided he is in possession of the property of
such senior citizen or he would inherit the property of
such senior citizen:Provided that where more than one
relatives are entitled to inherit the property of a senior
citizen, the maintenance shall be payable by such
relative in the proportion in which they would inherit his
property.”] .

8
20 . The procedure to be followed by a Maintenance
Tribunal (constituted under Section 7) is of a summary
nature as provided in Section 8(1) and with all the
powers of a civil court, as provided in Section 8(2) [ “ 8.
Summary procedure in case of inquiry .—(1) In
holding any inquiry under Section 5, the Tribunal may,
subject to any rules that may be prescribed by the State
Government in this behalf, follow such summary
procedure as it deems fit.(2) The Tribunal shall have all
the powers of a civil court for the purpose of taking
evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of
witnesses and of compelling the discovery and
production of documents and material objects and for
such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the
Tribunal shall be deemed to be a civil court for all the
purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).”] . Under sub-
section (1) of Section 9, where a senior citizen is not
able to maintain himself or herself and the children or
relatives, as the case may be, neglect or refuse to
maintain them, the Tribunal is empowered to order them
to make a monthly allowance at such monthly rate for
the maintenance of the senior citizen, as the Tribunal
may deem fit [ “ 9. Order for maintenance .—(1) If
children or relatives, as the case may be, neglect or

9
refuse to maintain a senior citizen being unable to
maintain himself, the Tribunal may, on being satisfied of
such neglect or refusal, order such children or relatives
to make a monthly allowance at such monthly rate for
the maintenance of such senior citizen, as the Tribunal
may deem fit and to pay the same to such senior citizen
as the Tribunal may, from time to time, direct.”] . The
amount of the monthly allowance can be altered inter
alia upon a change in circumstances, under Section 10 [
“ 10. Alteration in allowance .—(1) On proof of
misrepresentation or mistake of fact or a change in the
circumstances of any person, receiving a monthly
allowance under Section 9, for the maintenance ordered
under that section to pay a monthly allowance for the
maintenance, the Tribunal may make such alteration, as
it thinks fit, in the allowance for the maintenance.(2)
Where it appears to the Tribunal that, in consequence of
any decision of a competent civil court, any order made
under Section 9 should be cancelled or varied, it shall
cancel the order or, as the case may be, vary the same
accordingly.”] .
6. This Court in the matter of Devendra Khanna & Another vs.
State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2026 SCC Online Chh
14044 has considered the vital aspect in respect of Maintenance
under Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens

10
Act, 2007 has held that senior citizen is entitled for maintenance.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon
perusal of the records as well as the material available on record,
it is evident that the appellant senior citizen (mother) is presently
residing with her daughter the respondent No. 5 herein, who is
taking due care of her day-to-day needs. Having regard to the
overall circumstances of the parties and the financial aspects of
respondent No. 1 involved, this Court is of the considered view
that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the learned
Maintenance Tribunal and subsequently considered by the
Appellate Tribunal requires reconsideration. The parties are also
agreed that if some reasonable amount is fixed by this Court then
they will abide by the order passed by this Court. Accordingly,
while maintaining the entitlement of the senior citizen petitioner to
receive maintenance, the amount of monthly maintenance is
hereby reduced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month.
8. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed
of.
SD/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Raghu Jat