Daughter-in-law

Is it possible to know from the SDM office/District Collectors office whether or not the legitimate process of proceedings has been followed?
Take: Only the party to proceedings can do file inspection as this is a Special Act overriding any other Act time being. [THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007]


Whether or not (or why) each sections of “THE MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007” has been evaluated or collaborated in accordance with what the applicant has demanded in the application from the respondents?
Take: if various Sections in the Act is used for relief purposes then only evaluation under whole Act is deemed necessary otherwise why one should go to length and breadth of whole Act !

How can legal practitioner represent either side, when SDM himself told me that there is no need of any legal practitioner?
Take: As earlier said this being Special Act the matter is looked by a Tribunal and legal practitioner may represent seeking leave of the Office of SDM.

Documentary evidences submitted from our side are sufficient that applicant (who is 78 years old mother who is handicap and suffering from many chronic ailments) is capable enough to maintain oneself. It would be important to evaluate that the root cause and the motive of moving the application through the witnesses, under their influence, was only for our eviction. The very purpose was only to harness the respondents and who have been holding or controlling the assets of the applicant through miscellaneous unethical endorsements.
Take: Noted. Observation herein is how one can say that the applicant is capable when one side you are showing via documentary evidences her medical status ! I think you used a wrong English wordings here thus I am confused, you may clarify if any ?

Under the subject proceeding, second respondent is DIL and first respondent myself (son).
Take: Noted. The Tribunal case is that of 78 yrs. Old medical incapable unfit mother Vs. DIL and you.

List of other children and grand children was also provided to the SDM. They all are well off professionally, and are either equally or rather most responsible towards the cause of maintenance. But unfortunately, they have not been held responsible in the one sided judgment delivered. We as respondents were not given opportunity to present our side during the proceedings.
Take: It is personal objective of Mother to array other siblings of yours or not and you as respondent cannot force applicant (mother) to array. There is Delhi HC Judgment which says “not necessary”

Two of the witnesses representing applicant’s side are either controlling the assets of the applicant or they are the ultimate beneficiaries (after applicant's death) through their melafide intentions and age old activities.
Take: Cross examination may have been done to showcase such malaise/ intent.

Presently they have shifted the applicant under influence and the applicant is under virtual captivation with pathetic conditions and under most unhygienic surrounding in a small room.
Take: Same could have been brought to force notice of Tribunal and appropriate remedy prayed. Or same could have been brought to Jurisdiction Pilice to take remedial action as they have been given special rights to act upon senior citizens plight.

Earlier, Applicant has been enjoying best care with the respondents.
Take: There might have been some agitation somewhere with which cause of action delved otherwise why one would apply right to sue !

Thanks for your valuable appraisal, pease assess the attached file.

Thanks in anticipation