Bombay High Court
Puneshwar Somaji Awale vs Smt. Sitabai Wd/O. Somaji Awale And ... on 24 March, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:4773
1 21-wp-4618-22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4618 OF 2022
Puneshwar Somaji Awale
Vs.
Smt. Sitabai Wd/o. Somaji Awale and others
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P. N. Shende, Advocate for petitioner.
Ms. M. R. Kavimandan, AGP for respondents/State.
CORAM :- M. W. CHANDWANI, J.
DATED :- 24.03.2026 The petition challenges the order dated 17.03.2021 passed by respondent no. 5- Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chandrapur in Complaint no. 14/2019 and the order dated 09.02.2022 passed by respondent no. 6- the Collector, Chandrapur in Appeal No. 82/2021.
2. Though, respondent nos. 1 to 4 are served, none appears on their behalf.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGP for the respondent/State.
4. The question raised in this petition is whether the son of a senior citizen can file an appeal under Section 16 of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, "the Act of 2007").
RR Jaiswal 2 21-wp-4618-22.odt
5. The petition is squarely covered by the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad in the case of Jagdish Pitambar Pawar Vs. Pitamber Pundalik and others [Writ Petition No. 36/2023, order dated 29.11.2023] and the decision of the High Court of Delhi in case of Sudesh Chhikara Vs. State [2018 SCC Online Del 12365], wherein it has been held that Section 16(1) of the Act of 2007 cannot be read to limit the appeal only to one party i.e senior citizen as the same would render the provisions invalid. To sustain the validity of Section 16(1) of the Act of 2007, the same must be interpreted by applying the principle of purposive interpretation and casus omissus. Further, it has been held that right to appeal under Section 16 of the Act of 2007 provide right to appeal to the affected party including son of a senior citizen.
6. Therefore, the order dated 09.02.2022 passed by respondent no. 6- the Collector, Chandrapur in Appeal No. 82/2021 cannot sustain in the eyes and law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Hence, the following order:-
i) The petition is partly allowed.
ii) The order dated 09.02.2022 passed by respondent no. 6- the Collector, Chandrapur in Appeal No. 82/2021 is hereby quashed and set aside.
RR Jaiswal 3 21-wp-4618-22.odt
iii) The matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh on merits.
(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.) Signed by: Mr. Rajnesh Jaiswal RRToJaiswal Designation: PA Honourable Judge Date: 25/03/2026 18:37:23