1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** MAT/10/2026 Mrs. Nighat Rahman Khan Vs Smt. Aaliya Rahman Khan and Others Mr. Gaurav Ghosh Ms. Shumaila Altaf [through virtual mode] Mr. Terence Dcruz … for the appellant Mr. K M B Jayapal … for the respondent no.1 Ms. Babita Das … for the respondent no.2 October 1, 2026 [SR] Item No. 5 1. Heard learned advocate for the parties. 2. The present appellant was an applicant before the Maintenance Tribunal alleging that she was being mistreated by her daughter, a recipient/donee of the property in question, gifted by the appellant. 3. It was alleged that having accepted the gift deed, the daughter of the doner was mistreating and depriving the doner of maintenance leading to infraction of the beneficial provisions contained in section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The appellant approached the Tribunal under the 2007 Act. Notice dated 14.10.2025 was issued to the daughter by the Tribunal asking her to appear before the Tribunal on 30.10.2025 at 3.30 pm. 4. The notice was put to challenge by the noticee (appellant’s daughter) by way of a writ petition bearing 2 WPA/557/2025. Upon presentation of the writ petition, an ad interim order was passed in favour of the writ petitioner, whereafter the present appellant filed an application for vacating the ad interim order. The application was numbered as CAN/1/2025. 5. While considering the stay vacating application, the writ petition was disposed of and the entire proceeding arising out of the notice dated 14.10.2025 was quashed and set aside. 6. The senior citizen (appellant) therefore is before this Court raising a grievance that once she made an allegation regarding mistreatment and deprivation of maintenance, despite issuance of gift deed in favour of her daughter, then non-existence of such condition, if at all, was to be considered/established before the Tribunal. Learned advocate for the appellant has appeared virtually and placed reliance of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sudesh Chhikara vs. Ramti Devi and another reported in 2024 (14) SCC 225. 7. It is therefore submitted that the order of writ court nipping the entire proceeding in the bud without allowing the Tribunal even to apply its mind is unsustainable. Whether the conditions existed for relief in terms of section 23 of the 2007 Act was an issue which was required to be considered before the Tribunal, in according with the procedure established under the Act. The interference by the writ court at the notice stage, therefore has deprived the senior citizen even an opportunity of making out a case for relief in terms of section 23 of the Act. 3 8. Learned advocate for the writ petitioner on the other hand submits that the gift deed itself was unconditional and therefore there was no basis for the Tribunal to exercise its jurisdiction on a complaint on the basis of such a gift deed. 9. Considering the submissions and in view of the nature of the gift deed, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. 10. We considered the rival submissions of the parties. 11. The application filed by the appellant before the Tribunal, makes a specific allegations for invoking the remedy under section 23 of the 2007 Act. Whether the conditions as alleged could be established or not was to be considered before the Tribunal in the proceedings instituted by the present appellant. 12. In this connection, we find reliance placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in Sudesh Chhikara (supra) to be justified in the facts and circumstances of the present appellant. 13. Insofar as the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned advocate for the writ petitioner that the nature of the gift deed leaves no scope for any relief under section 23 of the 2007 Act, we are of the view that the issue can very well be raised and considered before the Tribunal with reference to the deed in question, and other issues, in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the Act. 14. We do not find any justification for the Court to interfere at the notice stage, which was issued under the 2007 Act for appearance of the writ petitioner therein. At this stage, there 4 was no scope for interference as the issue is required to be considered on merits before the Tribunal. 15. We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the claim made by the rival parties and leave all issues open to be considered by the Tribunal and observations made by us in the present order shall have no persuasive value before the Tribunal. 16. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 17. The judgment of the learned Single Judge Bench dated 19.12.2025 is set aside. 18. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the writ petitioner that they have filed their written objection before the Tribunal. 19. Under the circumstances, the parties are at liberty to contest the proceeding before the Tribunal in the proceeding vide F.No.2-47/AC(R&DM)/SCWMT/R.Cell/ 2025/1491. 20. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. ( Madhuresh Prasad, J. ) ( Prasenjit Biswas, J. )