IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLIAR ] MAT/16/2022 Smt S. Nagammal and another Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman and another Mr. K. Sabir … for the appellants Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi … for the Administration Mr. Arul Prasanth … for the pvt. respondent January 8, 2025 [SR] Item No.3 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. The statutory authorities under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 2007 Act) have passed orders to give effect to the provision of the statute for ensuring maintenance of the appellants’ father. 3. The order was passed on an application made by the father alleging that the appellants were neglecting him in all manners. The application was made under Section 4 and 23 of the 2007 Act and is dated 31.01.2022 to vacate the portion of house occupied by the present appellants. 4. Such direction of the Chairman of the Senior Citizen Welfare and Maintenance Tribunal, South Andaman was affirmed in appeal by an order dated 28.09.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman District. 5. The order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 28.09.2022 was assailed by the present appellants in WPA/555/2022. The same was affirmed by the writ court by its judgment and order dated 25.11.2022. 6. The appellant has assailed this order of the learned Single Judge. One fact however which has arisen in the interregnum is demise of the respondent no.2 on 18th March, 2023. The order passed by the statutory authorities as well as the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge was only to ensure maintenance of the respondent no.2. The same was an order passed under the scope and ambit of the 2007 Act. Since the beneficiary of the order (respondent No.2) is unfortunately no longer alive, the orders passed to enforce the provision of the 2007 Act therefore in the opinion of this court would now be infructuous. As a result the present proceeding has also become infructuous as there is no senior citizen in whose favour the maintenance has now to be enforced/implemented. 7. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in view of the events subsequent to filing of the present appeal, the same has become infructuous. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants however submits that the Hon’ble Single Judge has made certain observations in paragraph 15 touching upon the possessory rights of the appellant herein to the lands in question. 9. To such submission, we observe that the findings/observations made by the Hon’ble Single Judge in the order under appeal are to be read in the context in which the same has been recorded, being within the scope and ambit of the 2007 Act, only to ensure maintenance of respondent no.2. 10. Such observation therefore, would have no further repercussion or would not be of any persuasive value for any other purposes. 11. With such clarifications, the appeal stands disposed of. ( Madhuresh Prasad, J. ) ( Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)