SHRI SANTOSH SURENDRA PATIL Vs. SHRI SURENDRA NARASGOPNDA PATIL
LAWS(BOM)-2017-6-170
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on June 23,2017

Shri Santosh Surendra Patil Appellant
VERSUS
Shri Surendra Narasgopnda Patil Respondents

JUDGEMENT

SADHANA S.JADHAV, J. - (1.) This is an unfortunate litigation between old aged parents and middle aged sons. The Petitioner herein impugned the order dated 20th February, 2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pune in Criminal/SR/2/2015 confirming the order passed by the learned Additional Collector, Pune in Appeal No. 2 of 2016 under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007(for short "the said Act") and Rules made thereunder.
(2.) The Petitioner herein happens to be the elder son of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3 happens to be the younger brother of the Petitioner.
(3.) The Petitioner had challenged the impugned Order before the Vacation Court (Coram : P.D. Naik, J). It was submitted before the Vacation Court that the Appeal was rejected by the Additional Collector on 30th April, 2016 directing the Petitioner to vacate residential premises, constructed and owned by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It was submitted that the reasoned order of the Appellate Authority was not available and therefore, the advocate representing the Petitioner had no idea as to whether any reasoned order is passed. He had drawn the attention of the Vacation Court to the single line operative order. It appears that the learned APP had placed on record the communication received by Nigadi Police Station directing the police to execute order dated 30th April, 2016 and file a compliance report. It was also submitted that the Petitioner was willing to take care of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and that no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the eventuality that the order is stayed. Considering the submission, this Court (Coram : P.D. Naik, J) was pleased to issue notice to Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. On the date of filing of the petition, spare copies were not supplied and therefore, notices could not be issued to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The spare copies were supplied only on 16th May, 2016. Thereafter on 10/6/2016, the matter was listed for admission. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had caused their appearance. On 15/7/2016 interim relief was continued.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.