JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. The instant revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of Order No. 05 dated 25.08.2021 as passed by the Learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Domkal, Murshidabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SDO’) in L.A Case no. 1 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the said SDO in a proceeding under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the said ‘Act’) dismissed the petition of the petitioner as filed under Section 23 of the said Act.

2. The petitioner felt aggrieved and thus preferred the instant revisional application.

3. In support of the instant revisional application learned advocate for the revisionist/father at the outset draws attention of this Court to the copy of the petition as filed under Section 23 of the said Act before the learned SDO. Attention of this Court is also drawn to the impugned order. It is contended that while passing the impugned order, learned SDO has failed to visualize the true spirit of the said Act which is practically a beneficial legislation for the Maintenance and Welfare of the Parents and Senior Citizens guaranteed and recognized under the Constitution of India. Drawing attention to the provision of Section 8 vis-a-vis Section 23 of the said Act it is argued that while disposing the said petition under Section 23 of the said Act, the SDO has failed to appreciate the true spirit of the said application as well as the said Act and therefore the said SDO is not justified in passing the impugned order. It is argued that since in the deed of transfer as executed by the present revisionist/father in favour of the present opposite party/son, there exists a clause that after execution of the said deed of transfer the present opposite party/son shall have to maintain his parents and shall have to take the responsibility of their treatment and since the present opposite party/son has failed and neglected to comply with such stipulation of the deed of transfer, the SDO ought to have allowed the application as filed under Section 23 of the said Act instead of dismissing it. It is thus submitted that it is a fit case where interference is required by this Court in exercise of its superintendent jurisdiction as envisaged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. While opposing the contention of the learned advocate for the revisionist, learned advocate for the opposite party/son, submits before this Court that the Learned SDO is very much justified in passing the impugned order since before the learned SDO nothing could be established that the present opposite party/son is not maintaining and/or is negligent for the treatment of the present revisionist/father in terms of the condition as incorporated in the deed of transfer. It is thus argued that this is a fit case for dismissal of the instant revisional application. This Court has meticulously gone through the entire materials as placed before this Court especially, the photocopy of deed of transfer as executed by the revisionist in favour of the opposite party/son dated 24.01.2018, the said petition as filed under Section 23 of the said Act as well as the impugned order as passed by the Learned SDO. This Court has given its anxious consideration over the submissions of the learned advocates of both sides. For effective adjudication of the instant revisional application a look to the provisions of Section 8 as well as Section 23 of the said Act is necessary. Section 8 of the said Act is as under:

“8. Summary procedure in case of inquiry:

(1) In holding any inquiry under section 5, the Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it deems fit.

(2) The Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of