CWP-4682 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (179) Dipti Saini Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman Appellate Tribunal and others CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/daughter No.3 and 4 (senior citizens), has challenged the order dated 13.01.2026 (Annexure P No.1), in appeal No.36 of 2025, titled ‘Dipti Saini vs. Rajender Parshad and others’, whereby, the appeal was held to be not maintainable, at the behest of non 4682-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Saini Versus Deputy Commissioner cum Chairman Appellate Tribunal and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Mr. Rahul Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl. AG, Haryana. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jashanpreet Singh Deol, Advocate and Ms. Muskan Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4. Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shobhit Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.5. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(ORAL) Through the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/daughter No.3 and 4 (senior citizens), has challenged the order dated 13.01.2026 nnexure P-12), passed by learned Appellate Tribunal (respondent No.1), in appeal No.36 of 2025, titled ‘Dipti Saini vs. Rajender Parshad and others’, whereby, the appeal was held to be not maintainable, at the behest of non-senior citizen. 2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-4682-2026 Date of decision: 27.05.2026 ….Petitioner Versus ….Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Addl. AG, Haryana. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jashanpreet Singh Deol, Advocate and Ms. Muskan Sharma, Advocate Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shobhit Sharma, Advocate Through the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/daughter-in-law of respondents No.3 and 4 (senior citizens), has challenged the order dated 13.01.2026 12), passed by learned Appellate Tribunal (respondent No.1), in appeal No.36 of 2025, titled ‘Dipti Saini vs. Rajender Parshad and others’, whereby, the appeal was held to be not maintainable, at the 1 ….Respondents Through the instant writ petition, cast under Article 226/227 law of respondents No.3 and 4 (senior citizens), has challenged the order dated 13.01.2026 12), passed by learned Appellate Tribunal (respondent No.1), in appeal No.36 of 2025, titled ‘Dipti Saini vs. Rajender Parshad and others’, whereby, the appeal was held to be not maintainable, at the MANPREET SINGH 2026.05.30 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-4682 2. drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in ‘Paramjit Singh Saroya vs. Union of India and another’ it has been clearly held that even a non with the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, has a right to file an appeal. 3. dated 15.12.2025, deliv LPA-701- and connected matters daughter- Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, are not legally sustainable. 4. dispute between the husband and wife, had quietus, and settle the dispute between the means, passed the hereinafter extracted order instant petition: 4682-2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, has drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in ‘Paramjit Singh Saroya vs. Union of India and another’ it has been clearly held that even a non-senior citizen, who is aggrieved with the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, has a right to file an Learned counsel further places reliance upon the judgment dated 15.12.2025, delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in -2018, titled ‘Babu Lal Sharma vs. Shushila Devi and others’ and connected matters, to contend that proceedings initiated against a in-law under the provisions of the Maintenance and Wel Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, are not legally sustainable. Earlier, this Court after considering the matter, which is a etween the husband and wife, had and settle the dispute between the means, passed the hereinafter extracted order instant petition:- “As per the report of Mediation and Conciliation Centre, efforts to settle the matter could not yield any fruitful result. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, this Court is of the affirmed view that primarily, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law by dismissing the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner, on the ground of maintainability. Considering the nature of dispute, and relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.5, who are 2026 2 nsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, has drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgment dated 28.05.2014 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP-7282-2010, titled ‘Paramjit Singh Saroya vs. Union of India and another’ wherethrough, senior citizen, who is aggrieved with the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, has a right to file an Learned counsel further places reliance upon the judgment ered by a Division Bench of this Court in ‘Babu Lal Sharma vs. Shushila Devi and others’ , to contend that proceedings initiated against a law under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, are not legally sustainable. Earlier, this Court after considering the matter, which is a etween the husband and wife, had made an endeavour to give a and settle the dispute between the parties, through amicable means, passed the hereinafter extracted order dated 07.05.2026, upon the As per the report of Mediation and Conciliation Centre, efforts to settle the matter could not yield any Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, this Court is of the affirmed view that primarily, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law by dismissing the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner, on the ground of maintainability. dering the nature of dispute, and relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.5, who are 2 nsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, has 28.05.2014 titled wherethrough, senior citizen, who is aggrieved with the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, has a right to file an Learned counsel further places reliance upon the judgment ered by a Division Bench of this Court in ‘Babu Lal Sharma vs. Shushila Devi and others’ , to contend that proceedings initiated against a fare of Earlier, this Court after considering the matter, which is a made an endeavour to give a parties, through amicable , upon the As per the report of Mediation and Conciliation Centre, efforts to settle the matter could not yield any Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, this Court is of the affirmed view that primarily, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law by dismissing the statutory appeal preferred by the dering the nature of dispute, and relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.5, who are MANPREET SINGH 2026.05.30 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-4682 5. petitioner/daughter orders passed in the However, 6. the prayer made in the instant writ petition, vociferously. However, t admitted that there is illegality in the order, passed by learned Appellate Tribunal, to the extent, that an appeal filed by the petitioner/daughter law, is not maintainable. 7. dated 28.05. CWP-7282 another’ 4682-2026 present in person, this Court put in earnest efforts to settle the matter amicably. As a result, respondent No.5-husband submits that he is ready to make meticulous compliance of the order dated 01.12.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge, in the proceedings arising out of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, by providing a rented accommodation to the petitioner; remitting an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month, besides education expenses of the minor child, etc. Accordingly, on the request, the matter is adjourned to 22.05.2026, enabling respondent No.5 to find out a suitable rented accommodation in Sector 20 or 21, Panchkula. Further, the accompany respondent No.5 in the process, who, in turn, shall extend full cooperation. To be shown in the urgent list. Various efforts were made to resettle the petitioner/daughter-in-law, in the alternate accommodation, orders passed in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. However, it does not yield any fruits. Learned senior counsels for the respondents though opposed the prayer made in the instant writ petition, vociferously. However, t admitted that there is illegality in the order, passed by learned Appellate , to the extent, that an appeal filed by the petitioner/daughter law, is not maintainable. In view of the above, taking strength from the judgment 28.05.2014 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in 7282-2010, titled ‘Paramjit Singh Saroya vs. Union of India and another’ wherethrough, it has been clearly held that even a non 2026 3 present in person, this Court put in earnest efforts to settle the matter amicably. As a result, respondent husband submits that he is ready to make iculous compliance of the order dated 01.12.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge, in the proceedings arising out of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, by providing a rented accommodation to the petitioner; remitting an amount per month, besides education expenses of the minor child, etc. Accordingly, on the request, the matter is adjourned to 22.05.2026, enabling respondent No.5 to find out a suitable rented accommodation in Sector 20 or 21, Panchkula. Further, the petitioner is at liberty to accompany respondent No.5 in the process, who, in turn, shall extend full cooperation. To be shown in the urgent list.” Various efforts were made to resettle the alternate accommodation, in view of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. for the respondents though opposed the prayer made in the instant writ petition, vociferously. However, they admitted that there is illegality in the order, passed by learned Appellate , to the extent, that an appeal filed by the petitioner/daughter-in- taking strength from the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in ‘Paramjit Singh Saroya vs. Union of India and wherethrough, it has been clearly held that even a non-senior 3 present in person, this Court put in earnest efforts to settle the matter amicably. As a result, respondent husband submits that he is ready to make iculous compliance of the order dated 01.12.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge, in the proceedings arising out of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, by providing a rented accommodation to the petitioner; remitting an amount per month, besides education expenses Accordingly, on the request, the matter is adjourned to 22.05.2026, enabling respondent No.5 to find out a suitable rented accommodation in Sector 20 or 21, petitioner is at liberty to accompany respondent No.5 in the process, who, in Various efforts were made to resettle the in view of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. for the respondents though opposed hey admitted that there is illegality in the order, passed by learned Appellate - taking strength from the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in ‘Paramjit Singh Saroya vs. Union of India and senior MANPREET SINGH 2026.05.30 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-4682 citizen, who is aggrieved with the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, has a right to file an appeal, therefore, dated 13.01.2026 (respondent No.1) is set aside to learned Appellate merits, as well as, considering the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in 8. in pursuance of the order passed petitioner/daughter question, and therefore, he has made a request seeking interim directions, at this stage. 9. petitioner/daughter before the learned Appellate preferred by her, the latter shall make all same most petitioner, who is daughter 10. May 27, 2026 Manpreet 4682-2026 citizen, who is aggrieved with the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, has a right to file an appeal, therefore, dated 13.01.2026 (Annexure P-12), passed by learned Appellate (respondent No.1), does not pass the test of le set aside. Consequently, the instant lis to learned Appellate Tribunal, to decide the matter, afresh, on its own merits, as well as, considering the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Babu Lal Sharma (supra). At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the order passed by learned Maintenance Tribunal, the petitioner/daughter-in-law, has already been evicted from the house, in question, and therefore, he has made a request seeking interim directions, at this stage. This Court, after considering the itioner/daughter-in-law, grants her liberty to make such application before the learned Appellate Tribunal. In case, such an application is preferred by her, the latter shall make all same most expeditiously, on its own merits, petitioner, who is daughter-in-law, and has been evicted from the house. Consequently, the instant writ petition is May 27, 2026 Manpreet Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2026 4 citizen, who is aggrieved with the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, has a right to file an appeal, therefore, the impugned order ), passed by learned Appellate Tribunal s not pass the test of legality. Therefore, the same is required to be remitted back , to decide the matter, afresh, on its own merits, as well as, considering the judgment passed by Division Bench of At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by learned Maintenance Tribunal, the law, has already been evicted from the house, in question, and therefore, he has made a request seeking interim directions, after considering the prayer of the liberty to make such application . In case, such an application is preferred by her, the latter shall make all it’s endeavour to decide the expeditiously, on its own merits, considering the fact that the has been evicted from the house. Consequently, the instant writ petition is disposed of. (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 4 citizen, who is aggrieved with the order passed by the Maintenance order Tribunal Therefore, the same remitted back , to decide the matter, afresh, on its own merits, as well as, considering the judgment passed by Division Bench of At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by learned Maintenance Tribunal, the law, has already been evicted from the house, in question, and therefore, he has made a request seeking interim directions, prayer of the liberty to make such application . In case, such an application is to decide the considering the fact that the MANPREET SINGH 2026.05.30 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment