UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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   

 

Latest Legal News