JUDGMENT : SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J. 1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers; “i) call for the records leading to the issuance of the original of Exhibit P-3 and set aside it by issuing a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction; ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to ensure strict implementation of the directions in Exhibit P-1;” 2. The petitioner, a nonagenarian, had filed a petition before the second respondent-Maintenance Tribunal, claiming maintenance from her two sons and a daughter, who are respondents 3 to 5 herein. However, no amount was claimed against the younger daughter, Smt.Sherly Felix, as she is taking care of the petitioner. The Tribunal, after considering the petition filed by the petitioner, passed Ext.P1 order, exempting the younger daughter from the payment of maintenance and directing respondents 3 and 4 to pay Rs.4,000/- each and the fifth respondent to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance. Challenging Ext.P1 order, the fifth respondent filed Ext.P2 appeal before the first respondent; and the first respondent passed Ext.P3 order, setting aside Ext.P1 order and directing the younger daughter, Smt.Sherly Felix, to bring the petitioner to the house of her elder son, the third respondent herein. According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 order was passed without considering the objection raised by her before the first respondent-appellate authority, that the appeal is not maintainable as per the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act , 2007 (for short, “the Act”). Hence, she has come up before this Court, challenging Ext.P3 order. 3. The third respondent appeared in person and the fourth respondent appeared through counsel. Though notice was served on the fifth respondent, there was no appearance. 4. The third respondent submitted that he is also a senior citizen and he has no means to pay maintenance to his mother. The fourth respondent filed a counter affidavit, contending that the petitioner/mother was taken care of by him and the third respondent. It is also contended that in compliance with the interim order of this Court dated 02.04.2024, an amount of Rs.2,000/- is being paid to the petitioner without any default. To substantiate the above contention, he has produced Ext.R4(b) pay-in-slips. The fourth respondent filed a counter affidavit, contending that the petitioner/mother was taken care of by him and the third respondent. It is also contended that in compliance with the interim order of this Court dated 02.04.2024, an amount of Rs.2,000/- is being paid to the petitioner without any default. To substantiate the above contention, he has produced Ext.R4(b) pay-in-slips. As regards the right of the fifth respondent to file an appeal, the fourth respondent relied on Paramjit Kumar Saroya v. The Union of India & another [AIR 2014 P&H 121] and contended that the appeal is maintainable. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, the third respondent (party-in-person) and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent. 6. The core issue to be decided in this writ petition is whether the appeal filed by the fifth respondent is maintainable before the appellate tribunal as per the provisions of the Act. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in K.Lokesh v. The Bangalore District Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Appellate Tribunal and Special Deputy Commissioner-I [NC:2024:KHC:53004-DB] and the judgment of the Madras High Court in K.Raju v. Union of India [WP No.29988 of 2019), argued that Section 16 of the Act can be invoked only by senior citizens or a parent and the right of appeal is not available to any other party. 8. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent, per contra, relying on Paramjit Kumar Saroya (supra) and the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Jagdish Pitambar Pawar v. Pitambar Pundalik Pawar and others [WP No.36 of 2023], submitted that an appeal under Section 16 of the Act would be maintainable even at the instance of any of the children or relatives. 9. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both sides. Respondents 3 and 4 have not challenged the order passed by the tribunal. The fifth respondent, who is one of the children of the senior citizen, approached the appellate authority challenging Ext.P1 order by filing Ext.P2 statutory appeal under Section 16 of the Act. 9. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both sides. Respondents 3 and 4 have not challenged the order passed by the tribunal. The fifth respondent, who is one of the children of the senior citizen, approached the appellate authority challenging Ext.P1 order by filing Ext.P2 statutory appeal under Section 16 of the Act. Though an objection was raised by the senior citizen that the appeal is not maintainable under of the Act, the tribunal, without considering any of those aspects, passed Ext.P3 order, which reads as follows: Section 16 of the Act reads as follows: “16. Appeals.—(1) Any senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be, aggrieved by an order of a Tribunal may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal: Provided that on appeal, the children or relative who is required to pay any amount in terms of such maintenance order shall continue to pay to such parent the amount so ordered, in the manner directed by the Appellate Tribunal: Provided further that the Appellate Tribunal may, entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of sixty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. (2) On receipt of an appeal, the Appellate Tribunal shall, cause a notice to be served upon the respondent. (3) The Appellate Tribunal may call for the record of proceedings from the Tribunal against whose order the appeal is preferred. (4) The Appellate Tribunal may, after examining the appeal and the records called for either allow or reject the appeal. (5) The Appellate Tribunal shall, adjudicate and decide upon the appeal filed against the order of the Tribunal and the order of the Appellate Tribunal shall be final: Provided that no appeal shall be rejected unless an opportunity has been given to both the parties of being heard in person or through a duly authorised representative. (6) The Appellate Tribunal shall make an endeavour to pronounce its order in writing within one month of the receipt of an appeal. (7) A copy of every order made under sub-section (5) shall be sent to both the parties free of cost. The wordings in Section 16 of the Act are very clear and there is no ambiguity regarding the right of appeal for a senior citizen. (7) A copy of every order made under sub-section (5) shall be sent to both the parties free of cost. The wordings in Section 16 of the Act are very clear and there is no ambiguity regarding the right of appeal for a senior citizen. The Act was enacted to ensure a speedy and efficacious adjudication of the claims in relation to the grievances of the parents/senior citizens and only the parents or senior citizens, who are aggrieved by the order of the Maintenance Tribunal, can approach the appellate authority. If the respondents/children are aggrieved by any order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, there is no remedy granted to them to file an appeal; and the only remedy available to them is to file a writ petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, provided there are valid grounds to sustain such a challenge. 10. This Court, in Najeeb v. The Maintenance Tribunal [ 2018 (3) KLT 571 ], has considered the issue in detail and held that the respondent in the application filed before the tribunal is not facilitated to prefer an appeal as per the Act. The Karnataka High Court as well as the Madras High Court has also taken the very same view. The Punjab & Haryana High Court as well as the Bombay High Court has taken a different view, holding that the persons aggrieved by the order of the tribunal are entitled to file an appeal before the appellate authority. This Court, respectfully, is not inclined to concur with the views in the aforementioned judgments. However, I am inclined to follow the judgment of this Court in Najeeb (supra), wherein it is held that there is no remedy of appeal for the respondents, in a petition filed by the senior citizen, before the Maintenance Tribunal under the Act. Hence, I hold that Ext.P3 order passed by the appellate tribunal was without any jurisdiction and it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, as follows: a) Ext.P3 order passed by the first respondent - appellate tribunal is hereby set aside. b) Respondents 3 to 5 are directed to make payments as directed in Ext.P1 order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, as follows: a) Ext.P3 order passed by the first respondent - appellate tribunal is hereby set aside. b) Respondents 3 to 5 are directed to make payments as directed in Ext.P1 order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal. It is made clear that whatever amounts, if any, paid by respondents 3 to 5 on the basis of Ext.P1 order and the interim order of this Court shall be given credit to.