Raj HC raps Tribunal for delaying senior citizen’s maintenance case against son, daughter-in-law

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has strongly criticised the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Tribunal for failing to expeditiously decide a maintenance case filed by a senior citizen against her son and daughter-in-law, holding that delay in such matters defeats the very object of the welfare legislation.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 are required to be decided within a strict and time-bound framework, and any prolonged inaction by the Tribunal amounts to gross dereliction of duty and misconduct by the presiding officer.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, while passing a reportable order, observed that disobedience of court orders by quasi-judicial officers strikes at the very foundation of the rule of law and undermines judicial hierarchy. The court held that such conduct attracts departmental proceedings under applicable service rules, independent of the legality of the officer’s orders on merits.

Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India vs K.K. Dhawan, the High Court reiterated that disciplinary action can be initiated against officers who act negligently, recklessly, or in defiance of judicial directions, particularly where their conduct reflects lack of integrity, devotion to duty, or causes undue hardship to litigants.

Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the High Court examined a writ miscellaneous application filed by Kesar Devi, a 68-year-old senior citizen, seeking enforcement of earlier directions issued by the court for expeditious disposal of her application under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.

The petitioner had approached the Maintenance Tribunal, Sanganer, Jaipur, in March 2024 seeking relief against her son and daughter-in-law. Despite service of notice and repeated postings for final arguments, the matter remained undecided for several months.

Earlier, the High Court had twice directed the Sub-Divisional Officer-II, Sanganer, Jaipur, to decide the pending application within a fixed timeframe—first by an order dated November 11, 2024, and again on May 15, 2025—warning that non-compliance would be viewed seriously. However, the directions were not complied with, and the matter was repeatedly adjourned without adjudication.

Taking note of the continued inaction, the High Court found the explanation furnished by the concerned Presiding Officer to be wholly unsatisfactory. The court observed that even after being called upon to explain the delay, the officer failed to assign any valid reason for non-compliance and continued to list the matter without deciding it.

The court held that such conduct amounted to deliberate defiance of judicial orders and gross misconduct by a quasi-judicial authority, particularly when the case involved a senior citizen seeking time-bound relief under a welfare legislation.

As a corrective measure, the High Court ordered transfer of the pending application from the court of Deputy District Collector and Magistrate, Jaipur II (Sanganer), to the court of Sub-Divisional Officer-I, Sanganer, Jaipur, directing that the matter be decided on merits within four weeks.

The court further issued a show-cause notice to the erring Presiding Officer, calling upon him to explain why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for repeated non-compliance of court orders. He has been directed to remain personally present before the court on the next date of hearing.

The matter has been listed on February 12, 2026, for consideration of the explanation and further orders.

Case Title
Kesar Devi vs Guddi Devi & Another
S.B. Writ Miscellaneous Application No. 346/2025
In S.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 82/2025
In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17020/2024

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur

Bench
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand

Advocates
For the petitioner: Mr. Ashish Poonia
For the respondents: None appeared