WPMS/2415/2022
2025 Latest Caselaw 999 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPMS/2415/2022 on 18 July, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                          2025:UHC:6295
                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                      COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.            directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  WPMS/2415/2022
                                  Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Jai Krishna Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

2. Mohd. Matloob, Advocate for the respondent.

3. Petitioner is father-in-law of the respondent. Petitioner moved an application under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, for eviction of respondent, which was allowed by the Tribunal/ Sub Divisional Magistrate (Sadar), Dehradun, vide order dated 21.08.2021. Respondent challenged the order passed by the Tribunal/ SDM in an appeal before Appellate Tribunal, constituted under Section 16 of the aforesaid Act. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the said appeal, vide judgment dated 07.05.2022 and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that remedy of Appeal under Section 16 is only to a senior citizen or a parent and not 2025:UHC:6295 to other parties to the proceedings. He relies upon a judgment rendered by this Court in WPMS No. 1725 of 2025 (Ramesh Chandra Jaiswal & another v. Pankaj Jaiswal). Relevant extract of the said appeal is reproduced below:-

"19. Since the machinery provided in the aforesaid Act is not meant to decide civil or property rights but to protect the rights of parents/senior citizens, therefore, only the parents/ senior citizens, who are at the receiving end due to neglect by their children, are given the right to appeal.

20. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that in view of the plain language of Section 16 of the aforesaid Act, only a parent / senior citizen can maintain an appeal against an order passed by Maintenance Tribunal and children or relative of a senior citizen are not entitled to file appeal under Section 16 of the Act.

21. In view of the legal position, as discussed above, learned District Magistrate / Appellate Tribunal erred in entertaining and deciding the appeal filed by respondent. The impugned order passed by Appellate Tribunal is thus without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.11.2024 passed by District Magistrate is set aside. This judgment, however, will not preclude the respondent from approaching the appropriate forum, if available, in law."

5. Since this Court has taken a view that the right to appeal under Section 16 of the Act is available only to a senior citizen or a parent and not to the other parties to the proceedings, therefore, the Appeal filed by the respondent before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 16 was not maintainable. Thus, the Appellate Court acted without jurisdiction while passing the impugned judgment dated 2025:UHC:6295 07.05.2022.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 07.05.2022 is set aside. However, respondent shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum, for challenging the order passed by the Tribunal.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 18.07.2025 Navin

NAVEEN

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH

2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df0 06da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001,

CHANDRA st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875 643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.07.19 10:43:08 +05'30'