Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Krishnawtar Nagar, S/O Radhey Shyam … vs Smt. Vimla Devi Nagar, W/O Radhey Shyam … on 27 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:17287]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11275/2024
1. Krishnawtar Nagar, S/o Radhey Shyam Nagar, Aged About
63 Years, R/o Plot No. 2, Govind Badi, Sitaram Bazar,
Opposite To S.b.i. Bank, Brahmpuri, Jaipur.
2. Smt. Lata Nagar, W/o Krishnawtar Nagar, Aged About 63
Years, R/o Plot No. 2, Govind Badi, Sitaram Bazar,
Opposite To S.b.i. Bank, Brahmpuri, Jaipur.
3. Mukul Nagar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Plot No. 2, Govind
Badi, Sitaram Bazar, Opposite To S.b.i. Bank, Brahmpuri,
Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Smt. Vimla Devi Nagar, W/o Radhey Shyam Nagar, Aged
About 82 Years, R/o Plot No. 2, Govind Badi, Sitaram
Bazar, Opposite To S.b.i. Bank, Brahmpuri, Jaipur.
2. Radhey Shyam Nagar, S/o Tekchand Nagar, Aged About
86 Years, R/o Plot No. 2, Govind Badi, Sitaram Bazar,
Opposite To S.b.i. Bank, Brahmpuri, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.D. Agnihotri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain
with Mr. Bhadar Singh
Ms. Sunita Chaudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
1 Arguments concluded on 18.04.2026
2 Judgment reserved on 18.04.2026
3 Full judgment or operative part pronounced Full Judgment
4 Pronounced on 27/04/2026
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 13.06.2024 passed
by the Collector and District Magistrate, Jaipur in Case (Senior
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:08:53 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:25:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17287] (2 of 8) [CW-11275/2024]
Citizen Appeal) No. 57/2023, whereby the appeal was partly
allowed against the petitioners (non-appellants) and an eviction
order was passed directing them to vacate the property in
question, namely Plot No. 2, Govindbadi, Sitaram Bazar, opposite
SBI Bank, Brahampuri, Jaipur.
2. In view of the solemnity of the matter, particularly as all
parties involved are senior citizens (apart from petitioner no.3)
and the dispute concerns issues between the parents and their
son, this Court had directed the parties to appear in person to
ascertain relevant facts and explore the possibility of an amicable
resolution through mediation. However, despite compliance with
the said direction, it is observed that the parties are not inclined to
settle the dispute amicably or to opt for mediation.
3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that, on an earlier occasion, the petitioners
had preferred an appeal, being CMA No. 27/2023, before the
Court of the learned Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur
Metropolitan-II, Jaipur, which came to be allowed. Pursuant
thereto, orders were passed against the respondents, directing
them not to dispossess the petitioners from the property in
question. It was further contended that the present matter has a
chequered and protracted history of litigation, as the respondents
initially instituted proceedings before the learned Tribunal under
Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2007”),
read with Rules 5, 20, and 21 of the Rules of 2010, and thereafter,
from time to time, several appeals have been preferred by the
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:08:53 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:25:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17287] (3 of 8) [CW-11275/2024]
aggrieved party against the orders passed at different stages of
the proceedings.
4. It was further contended that, with respect to the property in
question, a civil suit had already been instituted by the
petitioners. It was submitted that albeit the said property stands
registered in the name of the respondent-wife, substantial
investment therein has been made from the hard-earned income
of petitioner No. 1. It was also urged that petitioner No. 3, being
the son of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, was born and brought up in the
said property, thereby establishing a long-standing and continuous
association of the petitioners with the property in question.
Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent is a retired
government employee and is in receipt of pension, thereby having
sufficient and independent means for basic subsistence. It was
additionally contended that, apart from the present petitioners,
the respondents have other children who are equally under a legal
and moral obligation to maintain them; and that the petitioners
have limited sources of income, and petitioner No. 3, being
engaged in the private sector, bears the additional responsibility of
supporting petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, particularly with regard to
their medical expenses and other necessities. In such
circumstances, it was contended that any dispossession of the
petitioners from the property in question would entail grave and
adverse consequences upon their livelihood and personal life.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents, in unison with respondent No. 1 (present in person)
vehemently submitted that there have been several instances
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:08:53 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:25:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17287] (4 of 8) [CW-11275/2024]
wherein the petitioners have subjected the respondents to abusive
conduct, engaged in frequent altercations, extended threats, and
otherwise disturbed the peaceful living of the respondents. It was
contended that such acts on the part of the petitioners have
created an atmosphere of fear, hostility, and insecurity within the
household. It was further submitted that taking into consideration
the continuous mental and emotional distress caused to the
respondents, coupled with the persistent tension prevailing
between the parties, the respondent No. 1 is living under a
constant sense of threat owing to the conduct of the petitioners.
Learned counsel emphasized that the cumulative effect of such
conduct has severely impaired the respondents’ right to live with
dignity and peace, particularly at an advanced stage of life.
6. It was further contended that all water and electricity supply
bills, along with other relevant documents pertaining to the
property in question, stand in the name of the respondent,
thereby indicating due possession and control over the said
property. It was submitted that the issue relating to ownership
and possession of the property has already been duly considered
by the learned Civil Court. It was also brought to the notice of this
Court that, in a separate suit, the learned Trial Court, after
affording due opportunity of hearing to both parties, dismissed the
application for temporary injunction filed by the present
petitioners. Furthermore, it was apprised that the parties have
previously been engaged in litigation before this Court as well, by
way of a Revision Petition, which reflects the continuing and
protracted nature of the dispute inter se the parties.
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:08:53 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:25:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17287] (5 of 8) [CW-11275/2024]
7. In support of the contentions made insofar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents had placed reliance upon
the ratio encapsulated in Rakesh Leeladhar Soni and Another
v. Smt. Premlata Leeladhar Soni and Ors.: AIR 2020 Raj.
27, Smt. Rshmi Saxena V. Suresh Prakash Saxena: 2017 (3)
WLC Raj. 312, and Dattatrey Shivaji Mane V. Leela Bai Mane
and ors.: AIR 2018 Bom. 229. Therefore, in view of the
aforesaid circumstances, it was vehemently urged that the present
petition deserves to be dismissed. It was further prayed that
appropriate directions be issued restraining the petitioners from
causing any interference or disturbance in the peaceful living of
the respondents, especially considering that respondent No. 1 is in
the twilight years of his life and is entitled to a life of tranquility
and security.
8. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and submissions made
by learned counsel, the parties present in Court, and upon an
assiduous consideration of the material available on record, this
Court is not inclined to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that the
jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory in nature and is to be
exercised sparingly, only to keep the subordinate courts and
tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to re-
appreciate evidence or act as a court of appeal. In this regard, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajani Manohar Kuntha & Anr. v.
Parshuram Chunilal Kanojiya & Ors.: Arising out of SLP (C)
No. 30407 of 2024 has categorically held that the High Court,
while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, cannot undertake a
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:08:53 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:25:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17287] (6 of 8) [CW-11275/2024]
re-appreciation of evidence or interfere merely because another
view is possible, and that such power is confined to cases of
patent perversity or jurisdictional error.
9. Insofar as the rights of senior citizens are concerned, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner,
Bengaluru Urban District & Ors.: (2021) 15 SCC 730 has
recognized that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a beneficial legislation enacted to
ensure the protection, dignity, and peaceful living of senior
citizens, and that appropriate orders, including eviction, may be
passed to safeguard such rights. Moreover, this Court is of a stern
view that where there is breach of obligation to maintain and
protect senior citizens, the competent authorities are well within
their jurisdiction to direct eviction of erring children or relatives,
so as to secure the senior citizen’s right to live with dignity and
peace.
10. In the present case, the impugned order dated 13.06.2024
passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Jaipur does not
suffer from any jurisdictional error, illegality, or perversity. Rather,
the same reflects due consideration of the facts and circumstances
of the case, particularly the strained relationship between the
parties and the necessity to ensure a peaceful and dignified life for
the respondents, who are senior citizens. The relevant extract
from the order dated 13.06.2024 is reproduced hereinbelow:
“vihykFkhZ us izR;FkhZx.k ls ijs”kku gksdj ;g vihy izLrqr dj vihykFkhZ la[;k
,d ds LokfeRo dh lEifRr IykV uEcj 2] xksfoUnckMh lhrkjke cktkj ,l ch
vkbZ cSad ds lkeus czg~ekiqjh] t;iqj ls izR;FkhZ la[;k 1 yxk;r 3 dks csn[ky
fd;s tkus dk vuqrks’k pkgk x;k gSA ekrk&firk ,oa ofj’B ukxfjdksa dk Hkj.k
iks’k.k vkSj dY;k.k vf/kfu;e ds rgr cus fu;eksa esa ekrk&firk ds thou ,oa(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:08:53 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:25:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17287] (7 of 8) [CW-11275/2024]mldh lEifRr dh j{kk ds fy, izko/kku fn;s x;s gaSA ekrk&firk ,oa ofj’B
ukxfjdksa dk Hkj.k iks’k.k fu;e 2010 dh /kkjk 20 ¼5½ bl izdkj gS& “fdlh
ofj’B ukxfjd ds thou ;k laifRr ds fdlh [krjs dh n”kk esa ftyk
eftLVªsV ;k lE;d:Ik ls izkf/kd`r mlds v/khuLFk fdlh vf/kdkjh dk ,sls
ofj’B ukxfjd ds thou vkSj lEifRr dh lqj{kk djus dk drZO; gksxkA ”
ekrk&firk ,oa ofj’B ukxfjdksa dk Hkj.k iks’k.k ,oa dY;k.k vf/kfu;e 2007 ds
izko/kkuksa ds rgr ekrk&firk ;k ofj’B ukxfjd dh ekax ij iq= o iq=o/kq dks
edku ls csn[ky djus dk vkns”k fn;k tk ldrk gSA vUrj.k fyf[kr vFkok
ekSf[kd gks ldrk gSA bl laca/k esa le;≤ ij ekuuh; mPPk U;k;ky; ,oa
ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ekrk&firk o ofj’B ukxfjd ds i{k esa fu.kZ;
ikfjr fd;s x;s gSaA blfy, izR;FkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`’Vkar bl
izdj.k ij pLik ugha gksrs gSaA vihykFkhZx.k }kjk pkgk x;k vuqrks’k Lohdkj
fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA QyLo:i vihy vkaf”kd Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA”
8. vihykFkhZ la[;k ,d ds LokfeRo dh laifRr IykV uacj 2] xksfoUnckMh]
lhrkjke cktkj] ,l ch vkbZ cSad ds lkeus] czg~ekiqjh] t;iqj ls izR;FkhZ la[;k 1
yxk;r 3 dks csn[ky fd;s tkus dk vkns”k fn;k tkrk gSA v/khuLFk vf/kdkj.k
dk “ks’k vkns”k ;Fkkor jgsxkA
11. This Court also cannot lose sight of the object and intent of
the Act of 2007, which is to provide effective protection to senior
citizens from abuse, neglect, and harassment. The material on
record indicates that the continuance of the petitioners in the
premises has led to an atmosphere of discord, as also
substantiated by the respondent-party appearing before the Court,
thereby justifying the action taken by the competent authority.
12. Be that as it may, in light of the settled position of law and
the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly
considering the protracted history of litigation between the
parties; the fact that the respondents are octogenarians who have
allegedly been subjected to threats at the hands of the petitioners,
thereby impinging upon their right to live with dignity and peace
as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India read
with the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007; and further taking into account that the
petitioners are not without means, inasmuch as they are drawing
income and petitioner No. 3 is a young and able-bodied individual,
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:08:53 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:25:11 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:17287] (8 of 8) [CW-11275/2024]
this Court is of the considered opinion that the mandate and
object of the Act of 2007, being a beneficial legislation, must
receive a liberal interpretation in favour of senior citizens;
consequently, no ground is made out for interference with the
impugned order in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
13. Accordingly, the present petitions, being devoid of merit,
stand dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed.
14. Needless to observe, the petitioners shall comply with the
impugned order in its letter and spirit and shall not, in any
manner, disturb the peaceful living of the respondents.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
CHANDAN /
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:08:53 PM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 11:25:11 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
