SADARUDDIN KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                            WRIT - C No. - 23319 of 2025

Sadaruddin Khan
                                                                       .....Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                                     .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)           :   Jitendra Shanker Pandey, Parvez Iqbal Ansari
Counsel for Respondent(s)           :   Amit Kumar Rajput, Saurabh Tiwari, C.S.C.

Court No. - 36
                 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Heard Sri Jitendra Shanker Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri Amit Kumar Rajput, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This Court has passed the following orders on 28.07.2025, 21.08.2025 and
02.09.2026:-

     28.07.2025

     "1. The present writ petition has been filed by the father of the
     respondents no.4 & 5.

     2. The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that inherited
     property of the petitioner was illegally taken over by his sons namely
     respondents no.4 & 5. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, an application
     under Section 7 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Maintenance and Welfare of
     Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 was filed by the petitioner before
     the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sikandarpur, District Ballia for seeking a
     monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/-. On the said application, an order
     was passed by him on 03.11.2023 by which direction was given to all the
     three sons of the petitioner to make a payment of Rs.2,000/- each.
     Aggrieved against the aforesaid, statutory appeal as provided under
     Section 16 of the Act, 2007 was preferred by the petitioner before the
     respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Ballia. The only observations by
     which the order passed by the respondent no.3 was affirmed directing the
     petitioner to provide the bank account details to his sons so that they will
     deposit the money directly in the bank account of the petitioner.

     3. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that even the aforesaid order
     has not yet been complied with by the respondents no.4 & 5.

     4. The matter requires consideration.
                                                          WRIC No. 23319 of 2025
                              2

5. Issue notice to respondents no.4 & 5 fixing 21.08.2025. Steps be taken
within a week to serve aforesaid respondents through speed post AD.

 6. Since the matter is maintenance of senior citizen aged about 80 years,
put up as fresh on 21.08.2025 along-with office report."

21.08.2025

"1. Pursuant to the order dated 21.08.2025, a counter affidavit has been
filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.4 & 5, the same is taken on record.

2. As prayed by the counsel for the petitioner, ten days' time is granted to
file rejoinder affidavit.

3. As the matter is pertaining to senior citizen, put up this matter again as
fresh on 17.09.2025."

02.09.2026

"1. This Court has passed following order on 21.08.2026:

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents and Sri Amit Kumar Rajput, learned counsel for the
respondent nos. 4 & 5.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the Sahadat
Khan as respondent no.6 during the course of day.

3. Respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 shall remain present before this Court on
the next date fixed. Each of them shall carry a demand draft of Rs. 50,000
drawn in favour of the petitioner.

4. Put up this case as fresh on 2.9.2026 at 10:00 am.

2. Respondent-6 is present in person through his Advocate, Sri Dinesh
Kumar Yadav and he is carrying a demand draft of Rs. 50,000/- in favour
of petitioner, which is handed over to Sri Jitendra Shankar Pandey,
learned counsel for petitioner during course of hearing.

3. Neither Respondents-4 and 5 are present in person nor their Advocate,
Sri Amit Kumar Rajput is present.

4. In aforesaid circumstances, let non-bailable warrant be issued to
Respondents-4 and 5 (Nawab Khan and Liyakat Khan sons of Sadaruddin
Khan, resident of Village Kikodha, Post Pandah, Tehsil Sikandarpur,
District Ballia) through Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, ensuring
their presence before this Court on 08th September, 2026 at 12.30 PM.
                                                            WRIC No. 23319 of 2025
                                  3

     5. Put up this matter on 08th September, 2026 at 12.30 PM.

     6. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps."

3. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, today, respondent Nos.4 and 5 are
present in Court on execution of non-bailable warrant. They have given
respective cheques of Rs.50,000/- each, drawn in favor of the petitioner,
namely, Cheque No.411466 dated 08.09.2026, (State Bank of India) and
Cheque No.088574 dated 08.09.2026, (Central Bank of India), which have
been handed over during the course of hearing to Mr. Jitendra Kumar
Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. In the present case, the petitioner is a senior citizen, whereas the
respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 are his sons. The petitioner has approached the
concerned State respondent under the relevant provisions of the Maintenance
and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and by an order dated
03.11.2023 a direction was passed that all the contesting respondents will
pay Rs.2,000/- per month each to petitioner towards maintenance. There is a
submission that it was not regularly being paid, though it has been
contradicted by learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the prayers are not
happily worded, the challenge is also to the enhancement of the amount
determined by the concerned authority, as Rs.6,000/- is not sufficient.

5. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that petitioner is
earning from other sources also.

6. I have considered the above submissions and finds that in view of a fact
that even if the petitioner is earning from the other sources, the responsibility
of contesting respondents would not come to an end, as they have to
maintain their father. The amount of Rs.2,000/- each, which is equal to
Rs.6,000/- per month, is not a sufficient amount. On the question of increase
it, the Court takes note of the submission of contesting respondents about
their ability to pay enhanced amount. Still, the Court finds that at least
Rs.1,000/- more be paid by each contesting respondent to the petitioner,
making Rs.3,000/- per month each, and total amount will be Rs.9,000/- per
month.

7. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned order, this petition is
disposed of, taking note of an undertaking given by the respondent nos.4
                                                                                         WRIC No. 23319 of 2025
                                                                  4


                                    and 5 present in the Court that they will ensure that the cheques given by
                                    them shall be honoured.

                                    8. The boundation of Non-Bailable Warrants is being made easy.



                                    September 8, 2026
                                    A.N. Mishra
                                                                                 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
AMARNATH MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad