Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |     Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute    |    

High Court Modifies Maintenance Order, Ensures Fair Treatment – Justice Vikas Bahl Advocates Equitable Maintenance in Senior Citizen Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a notable decision, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl, modified an existing maintenance order under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The Court’s intervention ensured fair treatment in a case where the original maintenance amount had been discriminatorily enhanced against one of two brothers.

Justice Bahl, in his ruling, addressed the imbalance created by an Appellate Tribunal’s earlier decision. The Tribunal had increased the petitioner’s maintenance payment from Rs.700/- to Rs.3000/- per month, while his brother’s contribution remained unchanged. This modification was challenged by the petitioner on grounds of discrimination.

In a statement that underlines the Court’s stance on equitable treatment, Justice Bahl observed, “It is apparently discriminatory that one of the brothers has been required to pay maintenance of Rs.700/- p.m. whereas the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.3000/- p.m.”

Following this observation, the High Court directed the petitioner to deposit the entire arrears of maintenance calculated at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month from November 2016. Additionally, the petitioner was ordered to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

The final settlement reached in the Court led to the petitioner agreeing to pay Rs.1000/- per month regularly as maintenance to the senior citizen, respondent No.3. The Court modified the impugned order accordingly and emphasized the importance of regular payments by setting a monthly deadline.

 Date of Decision: 05.01.2024

Jaspal Singh VS District Magistrate, Patiala and others   

 

Similar News