Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ramesh Kumar Soni vs Sampat Raj Soni (2026:Rj-Jd:18742) on 21 April, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:18742]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5263/2024
Ramesh Kumar Soni S/o Sampat Raj Soni, Aged About 42 Years,
R/o Subhash Marg, In Front Of Co-Operative Bank, Bilara District
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Sampat Raj Soni S/o Bihari Lal Soni, R/o Subhash Marg, In Front
Of Co-Operative Bank, Bilara District Jodhpur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RJ Punia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Chandak
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
21/04/2026
By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has
prayed for the following reliefs:-
“It is therefore most respectfully prayed that your
lordship may be pleased to allow this writ petition and by an
appropriate writ order and directions:-
(A) That the order dated 08.02.2024 (Annexure-4) passed by
learned Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Divisional Officer
Bilara in Maintenance Application NO. 01/2023 Sampat Raj
Soni V/S Ramesh Kumar Soni, may kindly be quashed and
set aside.
(B) That any appropriate writ order direction which this
Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in
favour of the petitioner.”
2. In the present writ petition, the dispute is between a father
and his son. The sole respondent, who is the father of the
petitioner, filed an application under Section 5 of the Maintenance
and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Act of 2007”) before the Presiding Officer,
Maintenance Tribunal-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Bhilwara
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 02:52:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:48:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18742] (2 of 5) [CW-5263/2024]
(hereinafter referred to as “the learned Maintenance Tribunal”). In
the said application, the respondent stated that his son (the
petitioner) and daughter-in-law had been living separately for
more than twenty years; however, on 28.01.2023, they forcibly
entered his house. It was further alleged that the petitioner, who
is unemployed, frequently returns home in an intoxicated
condition and harasses him for money. The respondent also stated
that the daughter-in-law supports the petitioner in such acts. As
per the averments, the petitioner has been threatening his parents
for money and asking them to vacate the house.
3. The petitioner filed a detailed reply before the learned
Maintenance Tribunal, denying all allegations. It was contended
that the subject property is not the self-acquired property of the
respondent and, therefore, the petitioner and his family cannot be
compelled to vacate the same. It was further stated that on
10.07.2023, the respondent misbehaved with the petitioner’s wife
and attempted to outrage her modesty, whereupon FIR No.
231/2023 was registered at Police Station Bilara under Sections
341, 323, and 354 IPC, which is presently under investigation. It
was also stated that the petitioner’s wife sustained injuries in the
said incident.
4. The learned Maintenance Tribunal, after hearing the parties
and perusing the record, concluded that the subject property is
owned and possessed by the sole respondent. The material on
record indicated strained relations between the father and son,
and that criminal cases are pending between them. With a view to
ensure the protection of the life and property of the respondent, a
senior citizen, and to enable him to live peacefully, the learned
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 02:52:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:48:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18742] (3 of 5) [CW-5263/2024]
Maintenance Tribunal, vide order dated 08.02.2024, directed the
petitioner to vacate the premises.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
applications under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 2007 are limited
to claims for maintenance or financial assistance, and that an
application seeking eviction of a son is not maintainable under the
Act. It was further argued that the Rajasthan Maintenance of
Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2010 do not contain any
provision permitting eviction. According to the learned counsel,
neither the Act nor the Rules expressly or impliedly contemplate
the power of eviction while deciding maintenance applications.
6. In the alternative, learned counsel submitted that even in
cases where a senior citizen alleges threat to life or property,
eviction is not an automatic consequence. The Maintenance
Tribunal must examine the facts and circumstances carefully
before passing such an extreme order. Reliance was placed on the
following judgments:-
(i) “Samtola Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh” in Civil
Appeal No. 26651 of 2023 decided on 27.03.2025
reported in LAWS(SC)-2028-3-87.
(ii) “Onkar Nath Gaur vs. District Magistrate/
President Appellate Tribunal Lko.” in Appeal No.612
of 2024 decided on 27.05.2025 reported in
LAWS(ALL)-2025-5-115.
(iii) “Vinod Sharma vs. Shanti Devi (Smt.) & Ors.” in
S.B. CWP No.1936 of 2022 decided on 21.02.2022
reported in 2022(1) DNJ (Raj.)369.
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 02:52:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:48:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18742] (4 of 5) [CW-5263/2024]
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
although the Act of 2007 does not expressly provide for eviction,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the
Maintenance Tribunal has the power to order eviction where it is
necessary to protect senior citizens. It was argued that specific
allegations of harassment and threats have been made against the
petitioner. Further, an FIR lodged by the petitioner’s wife is under
investigation, which itself indicates a hostile environment. It was
submitted that it is unsafe for the respondent to reside in the
same premises with the petitioner. It was also contended that the
respondent’s ownership over the property is established, as he
holds a 3/6th share through a lease deed dated 18.09.2025
executed by his siblings. Hence, the well-reasoned order of the
Tribunal does not warrant interference.
8. Heard.
9. Upon consideration of the submissions and perusal of the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court finds that it is
now well settled that the Maintenance Tribunal is empowered to
pass eviction orders where necessary for the welfare and
protection of senior citizens. Reference may be made to:-
(I) “S Vanitha Vs. Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru Urban
Disincr & Ors.” reported in (2021) 15 SCC 730.
(ii) “Urmila Dixit V. Sunil Sharan Dixit” reported in (2025
2 SCC 787).
(iii) “Samtola Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh” reported in
2025 SCC OnLine SC 669.
(iv) “Rajeshwar Prasad Roy vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.”
passed in Civil Appeal No.7675/2024.
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 02:52:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:48:18 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:18742] (5 of 5) [CW-5263/2024]
10. As regards the reliance placed by the petitioner on
“Samtola Devi” (supra), it is noteworthy that even in that case,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognized the power of eviction but
clarified that such power is discretionary and not mandatory in
every case. In that matter, the eviction order was set aside due to
the pendency of a civil dispute concerning the property.
11. In view of the settled legal position, the contention that the
learned Maintenance Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to order eviction
under the Act of 2007 and the Rules of 2010 is devoid of merit
and is rejected. This Court further finds that the respondent has
established his ownership over the subject property through family
settlement. The continuous disputes and pending criminal
proceedings between the parties is also established indicating that
the sole respondent may not feel safe while living with petitioner.
The purpose of the Maintenance Act would be defeated if old
parents are not protected by continuous mental and physical
harassment at the ends of their sons/ daughters.
12. Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality or jurisdictional
error in the order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the learned
Maintenance Tribunal, Bilara in Case No. 01/2023 (Sampat Raj
Soni vs. Ramesh Kumar Soni). The said order is hereby upheld.
13. Consequently, the present writ petition, along with all
pending applications, stands dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
192-divya/-
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 02:52:05 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/04/2026 at 08:48:18 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
