The right to appeal under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 extends to children and relatives, not just senior citizens or parents.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. JAWALKAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Counsel for respondents.

2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15/09/2022 under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 passed by respondent No.1 i.e. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Maintenance of Senior Citizen Tribunal, Chandrapur in Case No. 06/Misc./J.N.K.V.P/2022 in Case No. 18/2022, petitioners are directed to vacate three rooms of residence situated at the first floor of the house and also to vacate a shop which is in front of the house within the period of 1 month from the date of issuance of the order and handover the possession of the above stated rooms and shop and rejected the claim of maintenance.

3. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife respectively and their marriage was solemnized on 24/07/2017. Petitioner No. 2 is of different caste. Respondent No. 2 is father of petitioner No. 1, who had opposed the marriage of the petitioners, whereas, the mother of the petitioner No. 1 had supported their marriage and also gave reception on 10/09/2017. The respondent No. 2 did not allow the petitioners to come back to residential house and during the Pendamic (COVID-19). The respondent No. 2 suffered from the paralytic attack then petitioners were called back and that time, the petitioners had performed their duties. But after recovery of respondent No. 2, he is started harassing the petitioner on account that petitioner No.2 is of different caste and told petitioner No.1 to leave his wife.

4. The respondent No.2 is having grudge against the petitioner No.2 as she has married with petitioner No.1 and the said marriage is not accepted by the respondent No.2, being petitioner No.2 is of different caste. It is a matter of record that respondent No.2 was ill and at the relevant time, both petitioners served the respondent No.2 by residing in the same house. However, after recovering from his illness, respondent No.2 started abusing petitioner No.2 and also used to instigate his wife so as to drive her out of the house. Both the respondents abused petitioner No.2 in filthy language. On such quarrel, the respondent No.2 filed First Information Report dated 05/06/2022. Present respondent No.2 filed application before S.D.M. and Presiding Officer Senior Citizen Maintenance Tribunal, Chandrapur. The Presiding Officer Senior Citizen Maintenance Tribunal, S.D.M., Chandrapur., passed its order on 15/09/2022 and directed the petitioners herein to vacate three rooms of first floor and shop. Application of maintenance was rejected. Then petitioners herein preferred an appeal as per Section 16 of the Act and they were about to file the same before the learned District Magistrate, Chandrapur. However, concerned Officer who accept the filing of the appeal denied to entertain the appeal stating that only parents and senior citizens can file an appeal under Section 16 of the Act, 2007.

5. Learned Counsel for petitioner relied upon following citations :

i) Ankush Punjabrao Jamodkar Vs. The Appellate Authority and others, Writ Petition No. 4869/2024

ii) Dinesh Bhanudas Chandanshive Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 336

iii) Jagdish Pitamber Pawar Vs. Pitamber Pundalik Pawar and others, Writ Petition No. 36/2023

iv) Urmila Dixit Vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2

v) Namdeo S/o Babuji Bangde and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Writ Petition No. 2035/2020

6. Learned Counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners themselves is ambiguous as on one hand the petitioners are trying to project that an oral transfer of the said portion of three rooms of property had been made to them. On the other hand, they are alleging that the said case does not fall under the purview of Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act 2007. Under both the circumstances, petitioners cannot be allowed to stay in the above mentioned premises as