[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satpal And Another vs Suman And Others on 20 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
105 CWP-39516-2025
Date of Decision : March 20, 2026
SATPAL AND ANOTHER -PETITIONERS
V/S
SUMAN AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Mr. A.V.S. Parmar, Advocate, for
Mr. S.K. Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Sushane Puri, Advocate
for the respondent No.1.
***
KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)
1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners, sexagenarian
senior citizens, seek to challenge and set aside the order dated 08.08.2025
passed by the Appellate Tribunal, whereby the statutory appeal filed by
respondent No.1 has been allowed, and the eviction order dated 09.01.2025
passed by the Maintenance Tribunal has been set aside.
2. Succinctly stated, the petitioners filed a petition under Sections
5 and 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2007") before the
Maintenance Tribunal, seeking eviction of respondents No.1 and 2
(daughter-in-law and son) from the house in question. The Maintenance
Tribunal allowed the petition vide order dated 09.01.2025 and directed the
eviction of respondents No.1 and 2 from the house in question. Aggrieved
thereby, respondent No.1 filed a statutory appeal before the Appellate
1 of 4
Tribunal, which has been allowed vide the impugned order dated
08.08.2025, resulting in setting aside of the eviction order.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners draws the
attention of this Court to a notification dated 17.04.2025, prescribing the
composition of the Maintenance Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal for
District Sirsa, to submit that the impugned order dated 08.08.2025 suffers
from illegality, having been passed coram non judice. It is submitted that
under the notification (supra), both the Maintenance Tribunal and the
Appellate Tribunal are required to comprise three members, with the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate and the Deputy Commissioner acting as their
respective Chairmen. In the present case, however, the impugned order
dated 08.08.2025 has been passed solely by the Additional Deputy
Commissioner, who is not the designated competent authority under the
notification (supra). Moreover, the impugned order has been rendered
without the mandated coram, rendering it illegal and without jurisdiction. In
support of this contention, reliance is placed on the judgment dated
26.10.2016 rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.18784
of 2015, the relevant paragraph whereof is extracted hereunder:
"I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with able assistance and am of the considered opinion that
the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is patently
without jurisdiction because as per the Scheme of the Act, the
Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are constituted by the State
Government by way of notification and the appeal has to be decided
by the duly constituted Tribunal. In the present case, notification
dated 10.12.2012 has been relied upon to which there is no contrary
notification produced before this Court. In this notification, the
Tribunal has been specifically constituted for Kurukshetra in which
there are three Members. District Magistrate may be the Chairman
of the Tribunal but once there is a Tribunal of three Members, the
District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take decision alone and
the decision has to be taken unanimously or by way of majority.
2 of 4
Therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned order deserves to be
set aside and thus the present writ petition is hereby allowed and
impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the
Tribunal constituted as per notification dated 10.12.2012 to decide
the matter afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to both
the parties and by passing a reasoned order."
4. Although learned State counsel and learned counsel for the
respondent No.1 do not dispute that the impugned order dated 08.08.2025 is
vitiated as it has been passed coram non judice, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1 submits that the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the
Maintenance Tribunal is similarly vitiated, having been passed solely by the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, without the prescribed coram.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 further submits that
the issue whether eviction proceedings can be initiated against a daughter-
in-law under the provisions of the Act of 2007 stands conclusively answered
in the negative by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA-701-2018 (Babu
Lal Sharma vs. Sushila Devi and others), decided on 15.12.2025, and,
therefore, the eviction proceedings initiated against the respondent No.1
(petitioners' daughter-in-law) are wholly untenable.
6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record, this Court finds that the orders dated
09.01.2025 and 08.08.2025 have been passed by authorities lacking
jurisdiction and lawful coram prescribed in the notification dated
17.04.2025. Consequently, both orders are a nullity in the eyes of law and
cannot be sustained.
7. Accordingly, the orders dated 09.01.2025 and 08.08.2025
passed respectively by the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate
Tribunal are hereby set aside, having been passed in the absence of the
3 of 4
coram mandated by the notification (supra). The matter is remanded to the
Maintenance Tribunal concerned for fresh adjudication in accordance with
the provisions of the Act of 2007. The parties shall cause appearance before
the Maintenance Tribunal on 06.04.2026, whereupon the latter shall
endeavour to decide the matter expeditiously, after affording adequate
opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned.
8. Insofar as the issue "Whether, in view of the judgment
rendered in LPA-701-2018 (supra), proceedings initiated under the Act of
2007 against a daughter-in-law are maintainable?" is concerned, the same
is left open for adjudication by the Maintenance Tribunal while deciding the
petition filed by the petitioners under the Act of 2007.
9. Disposed of accordingly.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
March 20, 2026 JUDGE
devinder
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
