CRP (IO)/56/2026 Page 1 GAHC010039652026 2026:GAU-AS:9559 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) CRP(IO)/56/2026 1. Bhaskar Jyoti Goswami Son Of Sri Ramchandra Goswami, Resident of House No. 7, Rehabari Suhagpur, (Near Arya Hospital), P.O.- Rehabari, Guwahati, Kamrup (M), Assam, Pin- 781008. 2. Smt. Trisha Goswami Wife Of Sri Bhaskar Jyoti Goswami Resident of Resident of House No. 7 Rehabari Suhagpur (Near Arya Hospital) P.O. Rehabari Guwahati Kamrup (M) Assam Pin- 78100 …..Petitioners CRP (IO)/56/2026 Page 2 -Versus- 1. Ramchandra Goswami Son Of Late Bhudhar Goswami, Resident Of Resident Of House No. 7, Rehabari Suhagpur, (Near Arya Hospital), P.O. Rehabari, Guwahati, Kamrup (M), Assam, Pin- 781008 2. The Presiding Officer Maintenance Tribunal Kamrup (Metro) Guwahati Assam ……Respondents BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA Advocate for petitioners : Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, Sr. Advocate Mr. B. D. Deka, Advocate Advocate for respondents : Mr. B. D. Konwar, Sr. Advocate Ms. S. Jain, Advocate Date on which judgment is re- served : 25.06.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 14.07.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment : N/A Whether the full judgment has been pronounced : Yes CRP (IO)/56/2026 Page 3 Judgment and Order 1. Heard Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. D. Deka, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. D. Konwar, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Jain, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, namely, Shri Bhaskar Jyoti Goswami and Smt. Trisha Goswami, impugning the order dated 29.01.2026, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Maintenance Tribunal, Kamrup (M), Guwahati (constituted under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007), in WP Case No. 4717/2024, whereby the petitioners have been directed to vacate and handover the peaceful and vacant possession of residential premises belonging to the respondent No. 1, which is situated at Ulubari, Guwahati, to him within 30 days of date of the said order. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of this CRP (IO) in brief, are that the respondent No. 1, herein, had initially approached the Maintenance Tribunal, alleging that the present petitioners, who are his son and daughter-in-law respectively, had subjected him to continuous harassment, intimidation and hostile behaviour, as a result of which he was compelled to leave his own residence and reside in rented premises and hotels, and thereby his safety, peace, dignity and mental well-being has been adversely affected. The Maintenance CRP (IO)/56/2026 Page 4 Tribunal, after hearing the matter, by its order dated 20.07.2024, recorded a finding that the Respondent No. 1 had sufficient means to maintain himself and thereby rejected his claim for maintenance. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No. 1 approached this Court by filing a writ petition, which was registered as WP (C) No. 4217/2024. The said writ petition was allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by its judgment and order dated 14.07.2025, primarily on the grounds that the Maintenance Officer had acted beyond his jurisdiction as a Tribunal and granted liberty to the present respondent No. 1 to approach the Jurisdictional Maintenance Tribunal to seek redressal of his grievances under Section 5 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2007”). 5. 5. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1, who is a senior citizen, again approached the Maintenance Tribunal, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, by filing an application under Section 5 of the Act of 2007, inter-alia, stating that he has a residential property situated at Ulubari, however, due to the continuous hostile behaviour, harassment and intimidation by the present petitioners, he had to leave his own residence and reside in rented premises/hotel, whereby his mental well-being, safety, peace and dignity has been adversely affected. He sought the relief of eviction of the present petitioners from the aforesaid residential building. CRP (IO)/56/2026 Page 5 6. The present petitioners, who are the respondents in the aforesaid WP Case No. 4717/2024 had filed their written objection in the aforesaid proceedings. However, by the order dated 29.01.2026, the Presiding Officer, Maintenance Tribunal, Kamrup (M) has allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 1 and directed the present petitioner to vacate and handover the possession of residential premises situated at Ulubari, Guwahati, to the present Respondent No. 1 within 30 days from the date of the said order. Additionally, the Officer-in-Charge of the jurisdictional police station was also directed by the Maintenance Tribunal to ensure compliance of the aforesaid order. The said order has been impugned in this Civil Revision Petition (I/O). 7. Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that though in the impugned order, it has been stated that the learned counsel for the present petitioners were heard by the Tribunal, however, no such hearing took place before passing of the impugned order by the Maintenance Tribunal. He further submits that as per the Section 5 (3) of the Act of 2007, it is incumbent on the Maintenance Tribunal to afford an opportunity of being heard to both the parties and to hold an inquiry before passing any order under Section 5 of the said Act. However, he submits that nothing was done in this case to comply with the statutory provisions. 8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that in the instant case, the Tribunal has also not complied with the Rules framed under the Act, namely, the Assam State Maintenance and CRP (IO)/56/2026 Page 6 Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2012. He submits that the procedures to be adapted by the Maintenance Tribunal for dealing with an application filed under Section 5 of the Act of 2007 has been laid down in Chapter 2 of the Assam State Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2012. He submits that after registration of an application for maintenance filed by the senior citizen, and after appearance of the opposite parties, the matter has to be referred to the Conciliation Officer for conciliation of the dispute. He submits that in the event the conciliation fails for reasons mentioned in Clause (i) to Clause (iv) of Rule 13 (1) of the aforesaid Rules of 2012, the Tribunal shall have to give both the parties an opportunity of leading evidence in support of their respective claim and thereafter, after a summary inquiry as provided in Section 8 (1) of the Act, the Tribunal has to pass such order as it deems fit. 9. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that in the instant case from the scanned copy of the records of WP Case No. 4717/2024, which has been requisitioned in this case, there is no indication that any order sheet has been maintained in the aforesaid maintenance proceeding and there is nothing on record to indicate that the opportunity of leading evidence in support of their respective claim was granted to the petitioners. 10. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal has violated the principles of natural justice as well as failed to comply with the mandatory statutory requirement as prescribed in CRP (IO)/56/2026 Page 7 the Act of 2007 as well as Rules of 2012. As such, he submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Samtola Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.”, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 669. 11. On the other hand, Mr. B. D. Konwar, the learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1, has submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Maintenance Tribunal as per the provisions of the law and same need not to be interfered with in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. He submits that in the instant case, it is not an order granting maintenance, which has been passed by the Tribunal in favour of the present respondent No.1 but an order directing the present petitioners to vacate the residential complex, which belongs to the respondent No. 1. He submits that by occupying the residential complex belonging to the respondent No 1, the petitioners have deprived the respondent No. 1 from peaceful enjoyment of his property, which has also adversely affected the dignity and security of the respondent No.1. As such, the order of vacating passed by the Maintenance Tribunal has to be treated as an order under Section 23 of the Act of 2007. 12. The learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the requirement of complying with the mandate of Section 5 (3) of the Act of 2007 as well as the mandate of Rule 13 of the Assam State Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2012 is CRP (IO)/56/2026 Page 8 not mandatory under the facts and circumstances of this case, hence, he submits that the impugned order may not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1 has cited following rulings: (i) S. Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Ors., reported in (2021) 15 SCC 730. (ii) Kamalakant Mishra vs. Additional Collector and Ors., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2077. (iii) Jaagdish Pitambar Pawar vs. Pitambar Pundalik Pawar and Ors., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 3287. (iv) Riddhi and Anr. vs. Pratibha and Ors., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1690. (v) Dinesh Bhanudas Chandanshive vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., reported in (2024) 1 High Court Cases (Bom) 125. (vi) Amritya Bhatia and Ors. Vs. Baljeet Singh Bhatia, reported in 2020 (2) M.P.L.J. (vii) Dattatreuy Shivaji Mane vs. Lilabai Shivaji Mane, reported in 2018 (6) Mh.L.J. (viii) Nayana Sudhir Shah and Ors. Vs. Sudhir Premji Shah and Ors., reported in 2020 (5) Mh.L.J. CRP (IO)/56/2026 Page 9 (ix) Smt. Pachamma vs. State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 2017 KAR 1217. (x) Ram Chandra Goswami vs. State of Assam and Ors., in WP(C) No. 1365/2024. 13. I have considered the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for both the sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the copies of the records of WP Case No. 4717/2024. 14. In this context, it is pertinent to mention herein that though by order dated 08.04.2026, this Court directed the registry to call for the records from the Tribunal. However, it appears that instead of sending original records, the photocopies of the records of WP Case No. 4717/2024 were sent. Be that as it may, the photocopies of records are also sufficient to arrive at a conclusion in this case. On perusal of the copies of the records of WP Case No. 4717/2024, it appears that the records are not properly maintained. There is no index of the said record. Neither any order sheet of the aforesaid proceeding is there. Apart from order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Maintenance Tribunal, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in WP Case No. 4717/2024, there is no other order passed by the Tribunal in the aforesaid case, which is available in the said record. 15. After going through the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 and the Assam State CRP (IO)/56/2026 Page 10 Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2012, it appears that, while adjudicating any dispute between any senior citizen and his/her son/daughter/relative, the Tribunal, i.e., Maintenance Tribunal constituted under Section 7 of Act of 2007, acts as a quasi-judicial body and as such it has to follow the principles of natural justice. Further, by being a quasi-judicial body, while adjudicating any dispute, it has to maintain order sheet in the relevant case/ proceedings as the order sheets serves as permanent sequential diary of the case. It shows as to what happened on a particular day, when the matter was taken up by the Tribunal. It also shows who were present on the date when the matter was taken up and as to what was done by the Tribunal and the parties on that day. Maintenance of order sheets in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding ensures adherence to accountability and maintenance of judicial discipline. Maintenance of day-to-day order sheets in such proceedings also ensures transparency and public trust and helps the Appellate or Revisional Court to fully comprehend as to what happened on a particular day when the matter was taken up for hearing by the Tribunal. However, in the instant case, the records available before this Court shows that apart from final order dated 29.01.2026, no other order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal, Kamrup (M) in WP Case No. 4717/2024 is there on record. 16. In view of the judgments passed by the Apex Court, more specifically in the case of “S. Vanitha vs. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban CRP (IO)/56/2026 Page 11 District and Ors.” (Supra), as well as by the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of “Joybrata Kundu Vs. State of Assam and Others”, (Judgment dated 19.05.2026 passed in WA No. 403/2022), there is no doubt that while interpreting the provisions of Act of 2007, a purposive interpretation has to be given to the word “maintenance” and it is not confined to maintenance for the purpose of bare survival only, but extends to all conditions necessary for living with dignity and security by a senior citizen. 17. If the Maintenance Tribunal comes to a conclusion that the senior citizen was unable to peacefully enjoy his own residence due to continuous presence of the opposite parties, and same is regarded as detrimental to the security and dignity of a senior citizen, the Maintenance Tribunal can even pass an order of eviction against the opposite parties. However, the Maintenance Tribunal, being a quasi- judicial body, has to conform to the procedure prescribed by the Act and Rules framed thereunder to arrive at a conclusion in a dispute before it between the senior citizen and his or her children and relatives (opposite parties). 18. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parent and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 provides that “maintenance” includes provision for food, clothing, residence and medical attendance and treatment. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of “Joybrata Kundu Vs. State of Assam and Others” (Supra) has observed that the inclusion of “residence” within the definition of “maintenance” is of considerable significance and CRP (IO)/56/2026 Page 12 cannot be rendered otiose by adopting a narrow interpretation of financial maintenance. Thus, the obligation cast upon the children or relative of a senior citizen under Section 4 of the Act of 2007 may extend to providing a peaceful residence with security to a senior citizen and if the peaceful residence is deprived of and the senior citizen is subjected to insecurity within his own residential compound, then the tribunal may interfere in such matters and may direct the eviction of erring opposite parties (children/relatives). 19. However, to arrive at such a conclusion, the Tribunal has to follow the summary procedure as provided in Section 8 of the Act of 2007. Section 8 (1) of the Act of 2007 provides that in holding any inquiry under Section 5, the Tribunal subject to any rules that may be prescribed by State Government in this behalf may follow the summary procedure as it deems fit. In the case of the State of Assam, the Government has notified the Assam State Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules 2012 on 27th September 2012. 20. In the instant case, as already observed herein before, that there is nothing on record to indicate that any opportunity was given to the present petitioners to lead evidence in support of their respective claims in terms of the provisions of Rule 13 of the Assam State Maintenance and Welfare of Parent and Senior Citizens Rules, 2012. As such, on that account alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. CRP (IO)/56/2026 Page 13 21. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Maintenance Tribunal, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in WP Case No. 4717/2024 is hereby set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for affording opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective claims in pursuant to the provisions contained in Rule 13 of the Assam State Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules 2012, and thereafter, the Tribunal shall, after a summary inquiry, pass such order as it deems fit, as expeditiously as possible. 22. Send back the records of WP Case No. 4717/2024, along with the copy of this order to the Maintenance Tribunal, Kamrup (M), Guwahati for compliance. 23. This CRP(I/O) is accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Amita Sharma 2026.07.14 14:10:13 +05'30'