CWP-20247-2026 -1- 106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20247-2026 Date of decision: July 08, 2026 KANTA ...Petitioner Versus THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SONEPAT, APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Pranav Chadha, Advocate and Mr. Jaikar S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Saumya Ahluwalia, Sr. DAG, Haryana **** KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the impugned order dated 28.02.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2-Presiding Officer, Maintenance cum Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sonipat, in on an application moved by respondent No.3 under Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the impugned order dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure P-2), passed by respondent No.1-The District Magistrate, Sonepat, Appellate Authority under the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. 2. Succinctly stated, respondent No.3 instituted an application under the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.10 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-20247-2026 -2- (for short ‘the Act of 2007’) before the Maintenance Tribunal/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sonipat, seeking maintenance from the petitioner as well as performa respondents and to expel them from the house/shop-in-dispute. Vide order dated 28.02.2024 (Annexure P-1), the Maintenance Tribunal concerned partly allowed the said application. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No.3 preferred a statutory appeal before the learned Appellate Tribunal, Sonipat which was allowed vide impugned order dated 24.04.2025 (Annexure P-2). Being aggrieved therefrom, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to Haryana Government’s notification dated 17.11.2016, prescribing the composition of the Maintenance Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals, to submit that both the impugned orders suffer from illegality, having been passed coram non judice. It is submitted that under the notification (supra), both the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are required to comprise three members, with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate acting as their respective Chairmen. In the present case, however, both the impugned orders were passed in the absence of second and third member. Therefore, the said orders were rendered without the mandated coram, rendering them illegal and without jurisdiction. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the judgment dated 26.10.2016 rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.18784 of 2015, the relevant paragraph whereof is extracted hereunder: “I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with able assistance and am of the considered opinion that the ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.10 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-20247-2026 -3- impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is patently without jurisdiction because as per the Scheme of the Act, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are constituted by the State Government by way of notification and the appeal has to be decided by the duly constituted Tribunal. In the present case, notification dated 10.12.2012 has been relied upon to which there is no contrary notification produced before this Court. In this notification, the Tribunal has been specifically constituted for Kurukshetra in which there are three Members. District Magistrate may be the Chairman of the Tribunal but once there is a Tribunal of three Members, the District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take decision alone and the decision has to be taken unanimously or by way of majority. Therefore, on this ground alone, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and thus the present writ petition is hereby allowed and impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal constituted as per notification dated 10.12.2012 to decide the matter afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the parties and by passing a reasoned order.” 4. Notice of motion. 5. Ms. Saumya Ahluwalia, Sr. DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-State. She does not dispute that both the impugned orders are vitiated as they were passed coram non judice. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that both the impugned orders were passed by the authority(ies) concerned lacking jurisdiction and lawful coram prescribed in the notification dated 17.11.2016. Consequently, the same are nullity in the eyes of law and cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 28.02.2024 and 24.04.2025, passed respectively by the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal, are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.10 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-20247-2026 -4- Maintenance Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2007. The parties shall cause appearance before the Maintenance Tribunal on 18.08.2026, whereupon the latter shall endeavour to decide the matter expeditiously, but after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned. 8. Disposed of accordingly. 9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) July 08, 2026 JUDGE Ithlesh Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No ITHLESH KUMAR 2026.07.10 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment