CWP No. 29937 of 2024 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (116) CWP No. 29937 of 2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.08.2026 Kamaldeep Singh ......Petitioner Versus Appellate Tribunal-cum-Additional Deputy .....Respondents Commissioner (General), Fazilka and others CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab. Ms. Gurneet Sagoo, Advocate for respondent No. 3. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order 06.2.2023(Annexure P-2) passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Tribunal under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, Abohar, District Fazilka (respondent No. 2) as well as the order dated 17.9.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal (respondent No. 1), whereby the appeal filed against the order dated 06.2.2023, has been dismissed. 2. As per the pleaded case, respondent No. 3-Gurnam Kaur, who is the mother of the petitioner and respondent No. 4, filed an application under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short ‘the Act of 2007’) against the petitioner and respondent No. 4 before respondent No. 2, claiming maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per GURPREET SINGH 2026.09.02 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 29937 of 2024 (O&M) -2- month from each of them. She also sought restoration of ownership and possession of the residential house situated at Abohar-I, Nanak Nagri. It was stated in the said application that a residential house measuring five marlas situated at Village Azimgarh, Tehsil Abohar, was in the name of Surjit Singh, husband of respondent No. 3 and father of the petitioner. After his death, the petitioner and respondent No. 4 along with their wives were residing with respondent No. 3 in the said house. It is the case of the petitioner that after the death of Surjit Singh, mutation of inheritance bearing No. 38153 dated 07.08.2019 was entered and sanctioned in favour of all his legal heirs, as Surjit Singh died intestate. However, it is the allegation of respondent No. 3 in the application that the petitioner and respondent No. 4, under false assurance of maintaining her, got sanctioned the mutation of the said house in equal shares in the name of all the legal heirs. Upon notice of the application, the petitioner appeared and filed his reply, wherein he pleaded that that respondent No. 3 was already receiving a pension of Rs. 25,000/- per month being the widow of Surjit Singh and was also receiving Rs.2 lakhs per annum as lease money from land situated in Rajasthan. It was further pleaded that respondent No. 3 had already filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Family Court at Abohar, claiming maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month. Thus, the second application for grant of maintenance filed by respondent No. 3, was not permissible under law. Vide impugned order dated 06.02.2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Maintenance Tribunal-respondent No. 2, the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 5,000/- each per month to respondent No. 3. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No. 1, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Tribunal-respondent No. 1 vide impugned order dated GURPREET SINGH 2026.09.02 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 29937 of 2024 (O&M) -3- 17.09.2024 (Annexure P-3). Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present petition before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that both the authorities below have erred in passing the impugned orders and have failed to appreciate the facts specifically pleaded by the petitioner in his reply. It has further submitted that respondent No. 3 was already receiving a family pension of Rs.25,000/- per month being the widow of Surjit Singh and was also receiving Rs.2 lakhs per annum as lease money from agricultural land situated in Rajasthan. Thus, the application filed by respondent No. 3 claiming maintenance from the petitioner is not maintainable. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Maintenance Tribunal while passing the impugned order rightly came to the conclusion that no transfer deed or sale deed with regard to the house in question has been executed by respondent No. 3, rather the ownership of the house was transferred in favour of all the legal heirs of deceased Surjit Singh, who was the owner of the house in question and he died intestate. However, despite the aforesaid circumstances and without granting the petitioner an opportunity to lead evidence, the learned Maintenance Tribunal-respondent No. 2 directed the petitioner and respondent No. 4 to pay maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- each per month to respondent No. 3. Moreover, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order has also wrongly been dismissed by the learned Appellate Tribunal-respondent No. 1 vide order dated 17.09.2024. It has also been submitted that the father of the petitioner was also the owner of the agricultural land situated in the area of Chak No. 29 GG Jodhewala, area Chunawadh, Tehsil and District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan and after his death, the aforesaid land was inherited by all his legal heirs including respondent No. 3, and that mutation of the said land GURPREET SINGH 2026.09.02 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 29937 of 2024 (O&M) -4- was also entered and sanctioned in favour of all the legal heirs. Learned counsel also submits that respondent No. 3 had inherited agricultural land in Rajasthan along with the other legal heirs of Surjit Singh and had subsequently sold her share in the said land along with Anupamdeep Kaur (sister of the petitioner) for a total sale consideration of Rs.10,06,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 07.06.2024. It has also been contended that respondent No. 3 has filed the present application under Section 23 of the Act of 2007 in connivance with Anupamdeep Kaur and respondent No. 4 only to harass and humiliate the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 opposes the present petition and submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record. 6. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not sit as an appellate authority over an order passed by any authority concerned and does not ordinarily re-appreciate the material on record or substitute its own view for that of the said authority merely because another view may be possible. Interference is warranted only where the said order is shown to be perverse, based on no evidence, or such that no reasonable adjudicating authority could have arrived at it based on the material before it. 7. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 was not entitled to maintenance under the Act of 2007, particularly when she was receiving family pension and had other sources of income, and that the mutation in question was an inheritance mutation and not a transfer by her in GURPREET SINGH 2026.09.02 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 29937 of 2024 (O&M) -5- favour of the petitioner. The contention, however, does not merit acceptance. The Tribunal, while noticing that no sale deed or transfer deed had been executed by respondent No.3 and consequently declining to set aside the mutation, found, on consideration of the material before it, that respondent No.3 had been left without the care and support assured to her and was entitled to maintenance. Significantly, the Tribunal did not disturb the mutation so as to unsettle the shares of the other legal heirs; rather, having regard to the circumstances in which the mutation had been sanctioned and the subsequent conduct of the petitioner and respondent No.4, it moulded the relief by directing payment of maintenance to respondent No.3. The direction to pay Rs.5,000/- per month was accordingly issued against the petitioner and respondent No.4. 8. This Court finds no perversity or jurisdictional error in the aforesaid approach. The mere fact that respondent No.3 was receiving pension or had other income could not, in the circumstances of the case, by itself displace the finding that she required support and maintenance. Likewise, the pendency of proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. did not render the proceedings before the Maintenance Tribunal impermissible. The quantum of Rs. 5,000/- per month has not been shown to be arbitrary or excessive. The concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below are based upon the material available on record and no ground is made out for re-appreciation thereof in the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. 9. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 06.2.2023(Annexure P-2) and dated 17.9.2024 (Annexure P-3) call for no interference. 10. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. GURPREET SINGH 2026.09.02 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 29937 of 2024 (O&M) -6- 11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE August 26th, 2026 Gurpreet Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No GURPREET SINGH 2026.09.02 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh