CWP-22045-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 104 CWP-22045-2026 Date of Decision: 20.07.2026 KRISH MANGLA AND ANOTHER ......Petitioners Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate with Mr. Jatin Kumar, Advocate (through VC) and Ms. Srishti S. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Saumya Ahluwalia, Sr. DAG, Haryana. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 14.05.2026 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.2, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for the personal appearance of respondent No.3 in proceedings under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.3 (grandmother of petitioner No.1) executed a registered Will/Transfer Deed dated 11.11.2019 in favour of petitioner No.1. However, despite the petitioners’ duly providing care and maintenance to respondent No.3, she initiated proceedings against the petitioners, seeking cancellation of the transfer deed under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, at the behest of one Mange Ram, brother-in- law of petitioner No.2. It is further submitted that in the proceedings that RITIKA 2026.07.24 14:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP-22045-2026 -2- thus ensued, the petitioners sought the personal appearance of respondent No.3 before the learned Tribunal, to ascertain whether the transfer was subject to any condition of maintenance, and to effectively contest the allegations levelled against them. However, the learned Tribunal, vide the impugned order dated 14.05.2026, dismissed the application on the basis of a WhatsApp video call, which, as per the petitioners, did not amount to a proper video conferencing proceeding. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.3 was medically fit to appear in person, as evident from her notarized affidavit. Learned counsel contends that the personal appearance of respondent No.3 was essential for a fair adjudication under Section 23 of the Act. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 3. Notice of motion to the State-respondent No. 1 only at this stage. 4. Ms. Saumya Ahluwalia, Sr. DAG, Haryana waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent No.1-State. She submits that the impugned order was rightly passed after due appreciation of the facts and the material on record. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and perused the judicial record with their able assistance. 6. As has been reiterated in a plethora of judgments, the Act of 2007 is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted to ensure the maintenance and welfare of senior citizens. The Preamble itself reflects the legislative intent to make effective provisions for the maintenance and welfare of parents and senior citizens, in furtherance of the Constitutional mandate. RITIKA 2026.07.24 14:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP-22045-2026 -3- Bearing in mind the age, vulnerability, and immediate needs of senior citizens, the legislature consciously provided for summary proceedings before the Maintenance Tribunal. The object of incorporating such a procedure is to ensure that claims for maintenance are adjudicated with utmost expedition, unhindered by the procedural rigours and delays that ordinarily attend civil litigation. Expeditious adjudication is, therefore, not merely a matter of procedure but lies at the heart of the statutory framework. 7. Reverting to the facts in the present petition. It is the case of the petitioners that they have challenged the order dated 14.05.2026 passed by the learned Maintenance Tribunal, whereby their application seeking personal appearance of respondent No.3 in proceedings under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was dismissed. The learned Tribunal, after considering the facts and material available on record, observed that respondent No.3 had already been heard through video conferencing on 08.04.2026 and that hearing senior citizens through video conferencing was permissible for their convenience and safety. It was further observed that the petitioners had failed to show any prejudice or loss that would be caused due to non-appearance of respondent No.3. Accordingly, the application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to demonstrate any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the learned Tribunal. 8. Be that as it may, it also deserves notice that the impugned order is merely an interlocutory order regulating the course of trial. The learned Tribunal has only rejected the application of the petitioners seeking the personal appearance of respondent No.3 after observing that she had RITIKA 2026.07.24 14:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP-22045-2026 -4- already been heard through video conferencing and that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners. The impugned order does not finally decide the rights of the parties. The petitioners are still at liberty to contest the proceedings and lead evidence before the learned Tribunal. Interference under Article 226 at such an interlocutory stage is therefore unwarranted, particularly when the petitioners shall have full opportunity to establish their case before the learned Tribunal at an appropriate stage. 9 Accordingly, keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, no ground is made out for interference with the impugned order. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. 10. Civil Miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE July 20, 2026 Ritika Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RITIKA 2026.07.24 14:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh