1 CGHC010014642024 2026:CGHC:38917 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 566 of 2024 1 - Premshankar Satyarthi Son Of Late Jagatpal Satyarthi Aged About 54 Years Resident Of Beside Jyoti Hospital Naveen Nagar, B.M.Y. Charoda, Tahsil - Patan, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Sapna Satyarthi Wife Of Premshankar Satyarthi Aged About 47 Years Resident Of Beside Jyoti Hospital Naveen Nagar, B.M.Y. Charoda, Tahsil - Patan, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Laxmi Bai Satyarthi Wife Of Late Jagatpal Satyarthi Aged About 77 Years Resident Of Beside Jyoti Hospital Naveen Nagar, B.M.Y. Charoda, Tahsil - Patan, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners :- Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent :- Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 02.09.2026 1. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:- 2 “0.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 12-10-2023 (Annexure P-1) passed in Appeal Case No.02/B-121/year-2022-23. 10.2 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal/Collector, affirming the order dated 28.02.2022 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, is illegal, contrary to the provisions of the Act and has been passed in a summary and non- speaking manner without properly considering the issues raised by the petitioners. He submits that the application preferred by the respondent/mother seeking eviction of the petitioners from the dwelling house is not maintainable under the Act, particularly against petitioner No.2, who is the daughter-in-law, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Others, reported in (2021) 15 SCC 730. It is further submitted that although the Maintenance Tribunal has certain powers of a Civil Court under Section 8(2) of the Act, no evidence was recorded and the matter was decided in a summary manner without affording proper opportunity to the petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations made by the respondent are 3 false and motivated by the influence of her younger son, Harishankar, and that the petitioners are residing in the same dwelling house along with the respondent and their family. He therefore submits that the orders passed by both the learned Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are unsustainable in law and deserve to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is the registered owner of the house bearing Khasra Nos. 267/430 and 267/433 situated at Naveen Nagar, B.M.Y. Charoda, Bhilai-3, District Durg, and the revenue records also reflect her exclusive ownership over the said property. He submits that petitioner No.1 is the son and petitioner No.2 is the daughter-in-law of the respondent, and that the petitioners have been residing separately in a portion of the house since 2014. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1, without the knowledge or consent of the respondent, fraudulently obtained a loan by using the said property, pursuant to which an FIR was registered against him for offences under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of the IPC, and the respondent has also been subjected to recovery proceedings by the bank, causing her financial hardship. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have subjected the respondent to harassment and abuse and have no right, title or interest in the property, which was purchased by the respondent from her own sources. He further submits that the respondent had therefore rightly approached the Maintenance Tribunal seeking eviction of the 4 petitioners, which allowed her application vide order dated 28.02.2022, and the said order has subsequently been affirmed by the learned Appellate Tribunal/Collector vide order dated 12.10.2023. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioners have no legally sustainable ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the respondent is the mother of petitioner No.1 and mother-in-law of petitioner No.2. The respondent claims ownership over the house in question and has approached the Maintenance Tribunal alleging harassment and ill-treatment at the hands of the petitioners. The Maintenance Tribunal, upon consideration of the material placed before it, allowed the application preferred by the respondent vide order dated 28.02.2022, directing eviction of the petitioners from the subject premises. The said order has thereafter been affirmed by the learned Appellate Tribunal/Collector vide the impugned order dated 12.10.2023. 6. The principal contention of the petitioners is that the Maintenance Tribunal could not have granted the relief of eviction and that the proceedings were decided in a summary manner without recording oral evidence. However, merely because the Tribunal 5 has not recorded elaborate oral evidence, the orders cannot be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly when the petitioners have failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused to them or any perversity in the findings recorded by the statutory authorities. The Tribunal is empowered under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 to adopt a summary procedure, and the petitioners have not been able to establish that the procedure adopted has resulted in failure of justice. 7. So far as reliance placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Others, (2021) 15 SCC 730, is concerned, the said judgment does not lay down an absolute prohibition against consideration of an application seeking eviction of a daughter-in-law under the provisions of the Act of 2007. The applicability of the said decision depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the nature of the competing rights claimed by the parties. In the present case, the petitioners have failed to establish any independent right, title or interest in the subject property so as to warrant interference with the orders passed by the statutory authorities. 8. This Court, in WPC No. 6077 of 2024 (Devendra Khanna and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), has held that the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a beneficial legislation enacted to protect the life, property, 6 dignity and peaceful residence of senior citizens and, therefore, the provisions of the Act are required to be interpreted liberally and purposively. It has further been held that the jurisdiction of the Maintenance Tribunal is not confined merely to grant of monetary maintenance, but extends to issuing such appropriate and consequential directions, including eviction of children or relatives, as may be necessary to ensure the protection, welfare and peaceful living of the senior citizen. 9. In the present case, it is also significant that the respondent is an aged mother and has specifically alleged harassment and ill- treatment by the petitioners. The statutory authorities, after considering the material available before them, have found the respondent entitled to the relief sought by her. This Court, while exercising limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not sitting as an appellate authority over such findings and cannot substitute its own view merely because another view may be possible. No jurisdictional error, perversity, violation of principles of natural justice or manifest illegality in the impugned order has been demonstrated by the petitioners. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal/Collector in Appeal Case No.02/B-121/Year 2022-23, affirming the order dated 28.02.2022 passed by the Maintenance Tribunal. 7 11. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. 12. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha