{1} WP-12881-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 12881 OF 2025

Shri. Rushikesh alias Vaibhav Sunil Gholap

Age: 45 Years, Occ.: Servicing Center

R/o: At: 4

th

Floor, Avani Grand Society,

Jagtapwadi, Shahunagar, Godoli, Satara,

Tal. & Dist. Satara ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. Shri. Sunil Shankarrao Gholap

Age: 72 Years, Occu: Petrol pump

R/o At: Gholap Banglow, Shahunagar,

Godoli, Satara, Tal. & Dist. Satara

2. The Collector, Satara

Collector Office, Powai Naka,

Satara

3. Sub Divisional Officer, Satara

Sub Divisional Office, Powai Naka,

Satara

4. Circle Officer, Khed, Satara,

Circle Office, Khed, Satara. ... RESPONDENTS

Mr. Dipak Shelar, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Rajesh More, Advocate for respondent No. 1

Mr. S.D. Rayarikar, AGP for respondent No. 2 to 4/State

.......

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.

RESERVED ON : 29

th

JANUARY, 2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 27

th

FEBRUARY, 2026

Bhagyawant Punde

{2} WP-12881-2025

JUDGMENT :

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with t he

consent of the parties.

2. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

takes exception to the order dated 21.08.2024 passed by Respondent

No. 2-Collector, Satara dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and

order dated 02.01.2024 passed by Respondent No. 3- Sub Divisional

Officer under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents an d Senior

Citizens Act, 2007 (for short ‘said Act’).

3. Respondent No. 1 is the father of petitioner. He filed proceedings

against the petitioner under Section 5(3) of the said Ac t in short

alleging that he has one son (petitioner) and two daught ers. Elder

daughter is married. Younger daughter, wife and respo ndent No. 1

stays at the address mentioned in the cause title of the proceeding.

Petitioner is addicted to liquor and he resorts to Goondaism and

illegally grabs the properties of poor people, which is not liked by the

first respondent and his wife. Though, repeatedly understanding was

given to the petitioner to mend his ways, since, there w as no

improvement, respondent No. 1 along with his family wa s residing

separately since year 2014. He was infected with Covid a nd faces

difficulty in breathing. In October-2022, he suffered heart trouble and

Bhagyawant Punde

{3} WP-12881-2025

has undergone angioplasty. In spite of his infirm physical condition,

petitioner and his family are not looking after him and d eliberately

ignoring him. C.T.S. No. 110/12/1 (17 R), 110/11B (12 R) at mauje

Khed, Dist. Satara are his self acquired properties and he owns

Sushma Petrol Pump and Maruti Servicing Center situated at Jai Malhar

Society, NH-4, Vadhe Phata, which are being operated since the year

1981. Petitioner did not complete his education. He was given business

responsibility. He was permitted to operate Maruti Serv icing Center

along with all the machinery, bore-well, furniture, light connection and

workers. Petitioner does not deposit keys of service center and keys of

light connection at the petrol pump. He along with workers sit in the

service center drinking liquor in the night till 12.00 to 1.00 am.

Therefore, gate of the petrol pump cannot be locked. As per the rules,

customers of the pump are required to provide free water and air. For

that purpose they have to go to the service center. However, petitioner

and the workers obstruct them, which is causing inconvenience to the

customers. Petitioner has arrogantly driven respondent N o. 1 out of

service center and does not permit him to come there. He forcibly

takes away petrol, diesel and cash on credit from the pump. If he is

asked about the same, he abuses and give threats. At times, he also

beats respondent No. 1. Because of his terror, workers are afraid of

coming to the work. Petitioner is short tampered and h e resorts to

Bhagyawant Punde

{4} WP-12881-2025

bullying, threatening and fighting, which has created danger to the life

of respondent No. 1 and his family members. He theref ore prayed for

grant of injunction restraining the petitioner and workers from entering

the area of petrol pump and service center.

4. Petitioner appeared in the matter and filed reply deny ing all the

allegations made by respondent No. 1. In short he submit ted that

petrol pump and service center was looked after by respondent No. 1

and his grandfather Shankarrao Gholap. Grandfather exp ired in the

year 1992 and thereafter respondent No. 1 and sister Krushna are

operating the petrol pump. The entire earning from the petrol pump is

kept by respondent No 1. To establish the petrol pump and the service

center his grandfather had disposed of house in Shiva ji Housing

Society, Karad and gold of his grandmother. Only as a family

arrangement, said pump was registered in the name of respondent No.

1. Respondent No. 1 had lodged complaint with Superinte ndent of

Police making the same allegations. Said complaint was enqu ired by

the Superintendent of Police. The intention behind filing the complaint

with Superintendent of Police and the present proceeding is to give him

mental trouble and to defame him in the society. There i s separate

water and air connection for the petrol pump, therefore, allegation of

respondent No. 1 is not correct. Since the day he was driven out of the

Bhagyawant Punde

{5} WP-12881-2025

house, his father and sisters have not kept any relation with him. Their

allegations about he quarreling, threatening and rushing on them and

there is danger to their lives from him are totally false. He is the only

son of his parents and service center is his only earning source. Since

decades he is operating the service center. If he is driven out of the

service center, his family would be starved.

5. Respondent No. 3 after hearing both the sides and after

considering the written submissions came to a conclusion that though

the petitioner has no concern with the petrol pump and service center,

still forcibly he is giving mental trouble to his father. As per Section

4(2) of the said Act it is the duty of children to fulfill the basic needs of

the parents so that they can lead normal life and Section 23 of the said

Act provides for protection of property of senior citizens. Therefore, he

directed that without legal right or competent Court’s order, petitioner

shall not enter in the petrol pump and service center. Petitioner shall

not give physical or mental trouble to respondent No. 1.

6. Petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the order passed by

respondent No. 3 before respondent No. 2 by filing appeal. Hence, the

present petition.

7. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner, learned AGP for the

Bhagyawant Punde

{6} WP-12881-2025

State and learned advocate for respondent No. 1.

8. Learned advocate for the petitioner has assailed the impugned

orders contending that both the authorities have misint erpreted

Section 4(2) and Section 23 of the said Act. Respondent No. 3 is not

competent to issue permanent injunction order under th e said Act,

hence, the impugned order passed by him is without ju risdiction. The

impugned order is passed without applying judicial mind. Respondent

No. 2 has failed to appreciate these aspects and therefore, appellate

order is also liable to be quashed and set aside. The only remedy for

respondent No. 1 was to file civil suit in the civil Court for injunction

and this aspect is ignored by both the authorities.

9. Per contra, learned advocate for respondent No. 1 has supported

the impugned orders by relying on the affidavit in reply f iled by

respondent No. 1. He submits that petition is liable to be dismissed for

suppressing material facts and the petitioner has not come before this

Court with clean hands. Petitioner has suppressed the fact of he filing

Special Civil Suit No. 140 of 2024 for partition and separate possession

and seeking injunction that his father should not expel the petitioner

from the service center and he should be restrained from interfering in

the possession of the petitioner. He submits that by a reasoned order,

Exhibit-5 application filed by the petitioner is rejected by the Trial

Bhagyawant Punde

{7} WP-12881-2025

Court on 30.07.2024.

He further submits that petitioner has other properties described

in the reply filed by respondent No. 1 to earn his livelihoo d. He

therefore submits that there is no merit in the petition and petition is

liable to be dismissed. In support of his submissions he relied on S.P.

Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath

1

, Urmila Dixit Vs. Sunil

Sharan Dixit and Others

2

, S. Mala Vs. District Arbitrator &

District Collector & Others

3

, Dattatrey Shivaji Mane Vs. Lilabai

Shivaji Mane

4

, Raviprakash R. Sodhani & Anr. Vs. Ram Swaroop

Sodhani & Others

5

and Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab &

Others

6

.

10. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner, learned a dvocate for

respondent No. 1 and learned AGP for the State at length. Perused the

writ petition memo, annexures, impugned orders and the affidavit in

reply of respondent No. 1 and the record.

11. The main ground of challenge raised by the petitioner is that the

order of injunction passed by respondent No. 3 is without jurisdiction

as the said Act does not empower respondent No. 3 to pass order of

1 1994 AIR (SC) 853

2 AIR 2025 SC 458

3 W.A. No. 3582 of 2024 (Madras HC)

4 Writ Petition No. 10611 of 2018

5 Writ Petition No. 11375 of 2025

6 CWP No. 24508 of 2015 (Punjab and Haryana HC)

Bhagyawant Punde

{8} WP-12881-2025

injunction.

12. Before considering the said argument it is apposite t o consider

preamble of the said Act which states that, “An Act to provide for more

effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and

senior citizens guaranteed and recognised under the Constitution and

for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”

The statement of Objects and Reasons is as follows:

“Statement of Objects and Reasons .- Traditional

norms and values of the Indian society laid stress on

providing care for the elderly. However, due to withering

of the joint family system, a large number of elderly are

not being looked after by their family. Consequently,

many older persons, particularly widowed women are

now forced to spend their twilight years all alone and are

exposed to emotional neglect and to lack of physical and

financial supports. This clearly reveals that ageing has

become a major social challenge and there is a need to

give more attention to the care and protection for the

older persons. Though the parents can claim maintenance

under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the

procedure is both time-consuming as well as expensive.

Hence, there is a need to have simple, inexpensive and

speedy provisions to claim maintenance for parents.

2. The Bill proposes to cast an obligation on the

persons who inherit the property of their aged relatives to

maintain such aged relatives and also proposes to make

provisions for setting-up oldage homes for providing

maintenance to the indigent older persons.

The Bill further proposes to provide better medical

facilities to the senior citizens and provisions for

protection of their life and property.

Bhagyawant Punde

{9} WP-12881-2025

3. The Bill, therefore, proposes to provide for:-

(a) appropriate mechanism to be set up to

provide need-based maintenance to the parents and

senior citizens;

(b) providing better medical facilities to senior

citizens;

(c) for institutionalisation of a suitable

mechanism for protection of life and property of older

persons;

(d) setting up of oldage homes in every district.

4. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives.”

13. On plain reading of preamble and statement of objects and

reasons it is abundantly clear that the said Act is a b eneficial

legislation aimed at securing the rights of senior citizens.

14. The provisions of this Act are interpreted by the Apex Court from

time to time. In Urmila Dixit (supra) it is observed thus:

“13. The preamble of the Act states that it is intended

towards more effective provisions for maintenance and

welfare of parents and senior citizens, guaranteed and

recognised under the Constitution.

14. Therefore, it is apparent, that the Act is a beneficial

piece of legislation, aimed at securing the rights of senior

citizens, in view of the challenges faced by them. It is in

this backdrop that the Act must be interpreted and a

construction that advances the remedies of the Act must

be adopted.”

Bhagyawant Punde

{10} WP-12881-2025

15. In Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr

7

., it is

observed that;

“when a case pertaining to maintenance of parents or

wife is being considered, the Court is bound to advance

the cause of social justice of such marginalised groups, in

furtherance of the constitutional vision enshrined in the

preamble.”

16. In Ashwini Kumar v. Union of India

8

, the Apex Court has

made following observations:

“3. The rights of elderly persons is one such emerging

situation that was perhaps not fully foreseen by our

Constitution-framers. Therefore, while there is a

reference to the health and strength of workers, men and

women, and the tender age of children in Article 39 of the

Constitution and to public assistance in cases of

unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement and in

other cases of undeserved want in Article 41 of the

Constitution, there is no specific reference to the health

of the elderly or to their shelter in times of want and

indeed to their dignity and sustenance due to their age.

4. Eventually, age catches up with everybody and on

occasion, it renders some people completely helpless and

dependent on others, either physically or mentally or

both. Fortunately, our Constitution is organic and this

Court is forward looking. This combination has resulted in

7 (2014) 1 SCC 188

8 (2019) 2 SCC 636

Bhagyawant Punde

{11} WP-12881-2025

path-breaking developments in law, particularly in the

sphere of social justice, which has been given

tremendous importance and significance in a variety of

decisions rendered by this Court over the years. The

present petition is one such opportunity presented before

this Court to recognise and enforce the rights of elderly

persons- rights that are recognised by Article 21 of the

Constitution as understanding and interpreted by this

Court in a series of decisions over a period of several

decades, and rights that have gained recognition over the

years due to emerging situations.”

(emphasis supplied)

17. In Brahmpal v. National Insurance Company

9

, it is observed

that;

“a beneficial legislation must receive a liberal construction

in consonance with the objectives that the concerned Act

seeks to serve.”

18. In K.H. Nazar v. Mathew K. Jacob

10

, it is held that:

“11. Provisions of a beneficial legislation have to be

construed with a purpose-oriented approach. [Kerala

Fishermen’s Welfare Fund Board v. Fancy Food, (1995) 4

SCC 341] The Act should receive a liberal construction to

promote its objects.[Bombay Anand Bhavan Restaurant

v. ESI Corpn., (2009) 9 SCC 61: (2009) 2 SCC (L & S )

573 and Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar,

9 (2021) 6 SCC 512

10 (2020) 14 SCC 126

Bhagyawant Punde

{12} WP-12881-2025

(2008) 9 SCC 527: (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 813] Also, literal

construction of the provisions of a beneficial legislation

has to be avoided. It is the Court’s duty to discern the

intention of the legislature in making the law. Once such

an intention is ascertained, the statute should receive a

purposeful or functional interpretation [Bharat Singh v.

New Delhi Tuberculosis Center, (1986) 2 SCC 614; 1986

SCC (L&S) 335]

13. While interpreting a statue, the problem or mischief

that the statute was designed to remedy should first be

identified, and then a construction that suppresses the

problem and advances, the remedy should be adopted.

[Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd vs. Sanjay Dalia,

(2015) 10 SCC 161: (2016) 1 SCC (Civ) 55] It is settled

law that exemption clauses in beneficial or social welfare

legislations should be given strict construction [Shivram

A. Shiroor v. Radhabai Shantaram Kowshik, (1984) 1 SCC

588]. It was observed in Shivram A. Shiroor v. Radhabai

Shantaram Kowshik [Shivram A. Shirror v. Radhabai

Shantaram Kowshik, (1984) 1 SCC 588] that the

exclusionary provisions in a beneficial legislation should

be construed strictly so as to give a wide amplitude to the

principal object of the legislation and to prevent its

evasion on deceptive grounds. Similarly, in Minister

Adminstering the Crown Lands Act v. NSW Aboriginal

Land Council [Minister Administering the Crowns Lands

Act v. NSW Abroginal Land Council, 2008 HCA 48: (2008 )

237 CLR 285], Kirby, J. held that the principle of

Bhagyawant Punde

{13} WP-12881-2025

providing purposive construction to beneficial legislation

mandates that exceptions in such legislations should be

construed narrowly.”

19. In X2 v. State (NCT of Delhi)

11

, it is reiterated that,

“interpretation of the provisions of a beneficial legislation must be in

line with a purposive construction, keeping in mind the leg islative

purpose. Furthermore, it was stated that beneficial legislation must be

interpreted in favour of the beneficiaries when it is possible to take two

views.”

20. In S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban

District and Ors.

12

, the Apex Court observed that, “Tribunals under

the Act may order eviction if it is necessary and expedient to ensure

that protection of the senior citizen. Therefore, it cannot be said that

the Tribunals constituted under the Act, while exercising jurisdiction

under Section 23, cannot order possession to be tran sferred. This

would defeat the purpose and object of the Act, whi ch is to provide

speedy, simple and inexpensive remedies for the elderly.”

Relying on the above exposition, the Apex Court in Urmila Dixit

(supra) has held that, “In our considered view, the relief available to

senior citizens under Section 23 is intrinsically linked with t he

11 (2023) 9 SCC 433

12 (2021) 15 SCC 730

Bhagyawant Punde

{14} WP-12881-2025

statement of objects and reasons of the Act, that elderly citizens of our

country, in some cases, are not being looked after. It is directly in

furtherance of the objectives of the Act and empowers senior citizens

to secure their rights promptly when they transfer a property subject

to the condition of being maintained by the transferee.”

21. The Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in

Gurpreet Singh (supra) was considering the similar facts. Petitioner in

that case was a licensee living in the premises on the basis of

concession given by his father to live in the property owned by him. In

these facts, it is held:

“As a licensee, the petitioner is only permitted to enjoy

the possession of the property licensed but without

creating any interest in the property. A licence stands

terminated the moment the licensor conveys a notice of

termination of a licence. There is no vested right of any

kind in the licensee to remain in possession of the

property licensed. Admittedly, respondent No. 4 is the

owner of the property in question. The petitioner is living

in part of the property. Such property owned by

respondent No. 4 is required to be protected as mandated

by Section 22 of the Act read with Rule 23 of the Rules

and para 1 of the Action Plan. There cannot be any

effective protection of property of the senior citizens

unless the District Magistrate has the power to put the

senior citizen into possession of the property and/or

Bhagyawant Punde

{15} WP-12881-2025

restrain or eject the person who wishes to interfere in the

possession of the property of the senior citizen.

Protection of the property of a senior citizen includes all

incidences, rights and obligations in respect of property in

question. Once a senior citizen makes a complaint to

District Magistrate against his son to vacate the premises

of which the son is a licensee, such summary procedu re

will enure for the benefit of the senior citizen. The

petitioner would have no right to resist his eviction only

on the ground that the Act does not contemplate eviction

of an occupant. Eviction is one part of the right to protect

the property of a senior citizen which right could be

exercised by a senior citizen in terms of provisions of the

statute, Rules framed and the Action Plan notified.

The argument that civil suit is pending regarding

the rights of the petitioner in the property in question;

therefore, the order of District Magistrate is not legal

does not merit any acceptance. Suffice it to state that

jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in respect of all

matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Act in terms

of Section 27 thereof. Since, the protection of life and

property falls within the jurisdiction of the District

Magistrate, therefore, the District Magistrate is competent

authority to take steps for the protection of life and

property of the senior citizen.

However, we may say that such summary exercise

of the jurisdiction is without prejudice to the rights of the

parties which may be determined by the Civil Court in

accordance with law.”

Bhagyawant Punde

{16} WP-12881-2025

22. In the light of aforesaid exposition of law, there is no merit in the

contention of the petitioner that the third respondent h as no

jurisdiction to pass order of injunction in respect of property of the first

respondent. Respondent No. 1 has categorically assert ed that the

petrol pump and service center are his self acquired properties.

Petitioner has failed to substantiate his contention that the properties

are ancestral properties and that he has right to remain in the said

properties. Respondent No. 1 has permitted the petitioner to operate

the service center to earn his livelihood, therefore, the petitioner is in

permissive possession of the service center. However, s ince the

petitioner has started troubling him, respondent No. 1 was constrained

to approach respondent No. 3 seeking an injunction to protect his

property. In view of material placed on record, respondent No. 3 has

rightly passed the impugned order of injunction against the petitioner.

He is justified in directing the petitioner not to enter petrol pump and

service center without any legal right or order of competent court and

that he shall not give any physical or mental trouble to respondent No.

1. The said injunction order is in consonance with the preamble and

object of the said Act. and the said order is necessary with a view to

protect the property of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 by a

reasoned order has rightly rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. It

has also come on record that the properties i.e. agric ultural land

Bhagyawant Punde

{17} WP-12881-2025

admeasuring 8.50 R out of Gat No. 108/10/A and land ad measuring

0.09 R out of Gat No. 50/1/F/2 of village Khed, Tal. Sat ara and

agricultural land admeasuring 1.42 R out of Gat No. 196 of village

Bhatmarali, Tal. & Dist. Satara are in the name of petitioner. Plot No. 7

of Gat No. 139/6/140/1 is standing in the name of petition er’s wife.

The petitioner is having income from these properties and agricultural

lands. Therefore, there is no substance in his contentio n that the

service center is his only earning source.

23. There is substance in the contention of respondent No. 1 that the

petitioner has not come before this Court with clean hands and petition

deserves to be dismissed for suppression of material fa cts. In the

affidavit in reply, respondent No. 1 has brought on record the fact that

after respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order, the petitioner has

filed Special Civil Suit No. 140 of 2024 before learned Civil Judge,

Senior Division, Satara for partition against respondent No. 1/father,

mother and sister. Along with the suit, petitioner has also filed

application Exhibit-5 seeking temporary injunction restrainin g

respondent No. 1 from ousting him from Maruti Servicing -Washing

Center, and/or disturbing/interfering in his peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the said service center. The petitioner had questioned the

Bhagyawant Punde

{18} WP-12881-2025

jurisdiction of respondent No. 3 in passing the impugned injunction

order. The Trial Court has dealt with the said contention and on merit

by giving cogent reasons rejected the same. The Trial Court has made

adverse prima facie observations against the petitioner. The Trial Court

has come to a conclusion that the petitioner has misera bly failed to

make out a prima facie case in his favour, balance of convenience lies

in favour of respondent No. 1 and observed that respondent No. 1 will

suffer irreparable loss if the order of temporary injunction is granted in

favour of the petitioner. The Trial Court by a reasoned order passed on

30.07.2024 has rejected the temporary injunction application Exhibit-5

filed by the petitioner. Petitioner has challenged the order of Trial Court

by filing Misc. Civil Appeal No. 90 of 2024.

The petitioner has not disclosed the fact of filing of partition suit

and rejection of his temporary injunction application in re spect of

Maruti service center, wherein he had questioned the j urisdiction of

respondent No. 3 in passing the injunction order. The pe tition is

therefore also liable to be dismissed for suppression of material facts.

24. For the aforestated reasons, no case is made out b y the

petitioner to interfere in the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. Petition

being devoid of merit is dismissed.

Bhagyawant Punde

{19} WP-12881-2025

Rule stands discharged.

(NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)

At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner requests for

continuation of status quo order. For the reasons stat ed in the

judgment the said prayer is rejected.

(NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)

Bhagyawant Punde