CWP-15613 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (210) Harpal Singh Appellate Tribunal District Sangrur CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. filed the petition under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 2007’), before the learned Maintenance Tri 2. circumstances, and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, vide order dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure P (respondent No.1, therein), to pay Rs.2,500/ father Ajaib Singh (respondent No.3). The said order was assailed by the petitioner, by filing a statutory appeal, under Section 16 of the Act of 2007, before the learned Appellate Au as the said appeal was dismissed, vide order dated 09.04.2024 (Annexure P This has caused the grievance to the petitioner, and propelled him to file the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherethrough, he has made the prayer for setting aside of both the orders (supra). 15613-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Singh Versus Appellate Tribunal-cum-District Magistrate, District Sangrur and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Vikram Satpal Anand, Advocate Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Ankit Joshi, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) for respondent No.3. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(ORAL) The respondent No.3-Ajaib Singh, father of the petitioner, has filed the petition under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 2007’), before the learned Maintenance Tribunal, for grant of maintenance to him. The learned Maintenance Tribunal, after considering all the circumstances, and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, vide order dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure P ndent No.1, therein), to pay Rs.2,500/ father Ajaib Singh (respondent No.3). The said order was assailed by the petitioner, by filing a statutory appeal, under Section 16 of the Act of 2007, before the learned Appellate Authority. However, he remained unsuccessful, as the said appeal was dismissed, vide order dated 09.04.2024 (Annexure P This has caused the grievance to the petitioner, and propelled him to file the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherethrough, he has made the prayer for setting aside of both the orders 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-15613-2024 Date of Decision : 23.09.2025 …Petitioner Versus District Magistrate, ...Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Vikram Satpal Anand, Advocate for the petitioner. Vikram Satpal Anand, Advocate for the petitioner. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab (Legal Aid Counsel) Ajaib Singh, father of the petitioner, has filed the petition under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 2007’), bunal, for grant of maintenance to him. The learned Maintenance Tribunal, after considering all the circumstances, and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, vide order dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure P-3), directed Harpal Singh ndent No.1, therein), to pay Rs.2,500/- per month, as maintenance to his father Ajaib Singh (respondent No.3). The said order was assailed by the petitioner, by filing a statutory appeal, under Section 16 of the Act of 2007, thority. However, he remained unsuccessful, as the said appeal was dismissed, vide order dated 09.04.2024 (Annexure P- This has caused the grievance to the petitioner, and propelled him to file the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherethrough, he has made the prayer for setting aside of both the orders Ajaib Singh, father of the petitioner, has filed the petition under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 2007’), The learned Maintenance Tribunal, after considering all the circumstances, and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, , directed Harpal Singh , as maintenance to his father Ajaib Singh (respondent No.3). The said order was assailed by the petitioner, by filing a statutory appeal, under Section 16 of the Act of 2007, thority. However, he remained unsuccessful, -4). This has caused the grievance to the petitioner, and propelled him to file the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherethrough, he has made the prayer for setting aside of both the orders MANPREET SINGH 2025.09.29 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-15613 3. (respondent No.3), has transferred 12 Sandeep Kaur, vide transfer deed dated 21.02.2017, and he also disowned the petitioner, by issuing publication in vari that not only this, him, because of which, an FIR No.170 dated 323, 325, 506 and 34 of IPC, 1860, at Police Station Bhawanigarh, Sangrur, was registered. entitled to maintain his father. 4. has caused appearance before this Court, submits that there is no disp between the parties with regard to the fact that the petitioner is the only son of the respondent No.3, and the petitioner does not have sufficient means to maintain himself. respondent No.3, wa from his statutory obligation to maintain his father, who is a senior citizen. 5. the authorities concerned, is a interest of the State, 6. counsel for the parties, and has also Maintenance Tribunal, as well as, the learned Appellate Authority concerned. 7. petitioner, who is the obligation to maintain his father affirmative, by virtue of provisions of the Act of 2007. there is no doubt that the relationship between the present petitioner, and his father is stra favour of peti cannot absolve from maintaining his father, who is otherwise incapable to maintain himself. 8. the learned Courts below, to submit that to maintain himself in his old age. 15613-2024 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his father (respondent No.3), has transferred 12 kanals Sandeep Kaur, vide transfer deed dated 21.02.2017, and he also disowned the petitioner, by issuing publication in various newspapers. He further submits that not only this, his father and his sister, has made a physical assault upon him, because of which, an FIR No.170 dated 323, 325, 506 and 34 of IPC, 1860, at Police Station Bhawanigarh, Sangrur, was registered. In view of the above facts, the petitioner is not entitled to maintain his father. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, who has caused appearance before this Court, submits that there is no disp between the parties with regard to the fact that the petitioner is the only son of the respondent No.3, and the petitioner does not have sufficient means to maintain himself. Merely, because the land, which falls in the share of the respondent No.3, was not transferred to the petitioner from his statutory obligation to maintain his father, who is a senior citizen. Learned counsel for the State, the authorities concerned, is a quasi judicial or interest of the State, involved herein. This Court has heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, and has also examined the orders passed by the learned Maintenance Tribunal, as well as, the learned Appellate Authority concerned. The issue which requires consideration, is as to whether, the petitioner, who is the biological son of respondent No.3 obligation to maintain his father, or not? The answer to this poser is only in , by virtue of provisions of the Act of 2007. there is no doubt that the relationship between the present petitioner, and his strained, and the father has already transferred some piece of land, in favour of petitioner’s sister, Sandeep Kaur. Despite this fact, the petitioner cannot absolve from maintaining his father, who is otherwise incapable to maintain himself. No cogent and positive evidence was led by the petitioner the learned Courts below, to submit that respondent No.3 to maintain himself in his old age. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his father kanals of land, in favour of his sister, Sandeep Kaur, vide transfer deed dated 21.02.2017, and he also disowned the ous newspapers. He further submits his father and his sister, has made a physical assault upon him, because of which, an FIR No.170 dated 02.10.2023, under Sections 341, 323, 325, 506 and 34 of IPC, 1860, at Police Station Bhawanigarh, District In view of the above facts, the petitioner is not On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, who has caused appearance before this Court, submits that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the fact that the petitioner is the only son of the respondent No.3, and the petitioner does not have sufficient means to Merely, because the land, which falls in the share of the s not transferred to the petitioner, does not absolve him from his statutory obligation to maintain his father, who is a senior citizen. Learned counsel for the State, submits that the order passed by judicial order, and therefore, there is no heard the submissions made by the learned examined the orders passed by the learned Maintenance Tribunal, as well as, the learned Appellate Authority concerned. The issue which requires consideration, is as to whether, the of respondent No.3, is under statutory The answer to this poser is only in , by virtue of provisions of the Act of 2007. In the instant case, there is no doubt that the relationship between the present petitioner, and his , and the father has already transferred some piece of land, in tioner’s sister, Sandeep Kaur. Despite this fact, the petitioner cannot absolve from maintaining his father, who is otherwise incapable to and positive evidence was led by the petitioner, before respondent No.3 has sufficient means Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his father of land, in favour of his sister, Sandeep Kaur, vide transfer deed dated 21.02.2017, and he also disowned the ous newspapers. He further submits his father and his sister, has made a physical assault upon 341, District In view of the above facts, the petitioner is not On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, who ute between the parties with regard to the fact that the petitioner is the only son of the respondent No.3, and the petitioner does not have sufficient means to Merely, because the land, which falls in the share of the , does not absolve him submits that the order passed by der, and therefore, there is no heard the submissions made by the learned examined the orders passed by the learned Maintenance Tribunal, as well as, the learned Appellate Authority concerned. The issue which requires consideration, is as to whether, the tatutory The answer to this poser is only in In the instant case, there is no doubt that the relationship between the present petitioner, and his , and the father has already transferred some piece of land, in tioner’s sister, Sandeep Kaur. Despite this fact, the petitioner cannot absolve from maintaining his father, who is otherwise incapable to , before has sufficient means MANPREET SINGH 2025.09.29 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-15613 9. 12.12.2023 (Annexure P respondent No.3. specific query maintenance has been paid citizen, till date, orders reflects that no stay was granted in favour of the petitioner. Considering the conduct of the petitioner, this Court, is of the considered opinion that equity can be extended in favour of the petitioner. 10. retired Army personnel, drawing his pension with the Civil Hospital, Sangrur, therefore, there is no merit in the petition, and no interference of this Court, is called for. 11. September 23 Manpreet 15613-2024 Learned Tribunal concerned, has passed the 12.12.2023 (Annexure P-3), with regard to payment of maintenance to respondent No.3. During the course of the hearing, this Court, has put a specific query to learned counsel for the petitioner maintenance has been paid by the petitioner, till date, to which, he answered in negative. orders reflects that no stay was granted in favour of the petitioner. Considering the conduct of the petitioner, this Court, is of the considered opinion that be extended in favour of the petitioner. This Court has considered the status of the petitioner, who is retired Army personnel, drawing his pension the Civil Hospital, Sangrur, therefore, there is no merit in the petition, and no interference of this Court, is called for. Consequently, the instant writ petition is 23, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 3 Learned Tribunal concerned, has passed the order dated , with regard to payment of maintenance to During the course of the hearing, this Court, has put a to learned counsel for the petitioner, as to whether, any by the petitioner, to respondent No.3, senior to which, he answered in negative. Perusal of the interim orders reflects that no stay was granted in favour of the petitioner. Considering the conduct of the petitioner, this Court, is of the considered opinion that be extended in favour of the petitioner. This Court has considered the status of the petitioner, who is retired Army personnel, drawing his pension as well, and now, also employed the Civil Hospital, Sangrur, therefore, there is no merit in the instant writ petition, and no interference of this Court, is called for. Consequently, the instant writ petition is dismissed. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No order dated , with regard to payment of maintenance to During the course of the hearing, this Court, has put a any nior Perusal of the interim orders reflects that no stay was granted in favour of the petitioner. Considering the conduct of the petitioner, this Court, is of the considered opinion that no This Court has considered the status of the petitioner, who is , and now, also employed instant writ MANPREET SINGH 2025.09.29 09:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment